Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No, McConnell doesn't support repeal of birthright citizenship. Will he say so?

Senator Mitch McConnell does not support full repeal of birthright citizenship, despite suggestions to the contrary today, and may clarify that point if asked about it at his media stakeout later today, a senior GOP aide tells me.

The question is, How directly will he be pressed on this, and how directly will he clarify his views?

Folks are up in arms this morning because McConnell went on record late yesterday saying he supports hearings in order to "take a look at" whether to change the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Some are pointing out that this amounts to the mainstreaming of an idea that clearly should remain confined to the crackpot fringe.

A senior GOP aide stresses to me that nowhere did McConnell say he supports repeal. He merely thinks the current system is open to abuses, and needs to be looked at. And if asked today, he may say so, the aide tells me.

"He'd say nobody is talking about an all out repeal of the 14th amendment," the aide says.

In fairness to McConnell, calling for hearings into something really doesn't constitute taking a stand on it. There's a time-honored tradition in Congress where people support hearings into something in order to avoid taking a position.

It seems safe to assume that McConnell does not really support partial repeal of the 14th amendment. But immigration politics are on full boil right now, and with this idea gaining more traction, Republicans are in a tough spot. Hence McConnell's support for mere "hearings."

The problem is that there's no clear middle ground position. How do you support mere tweaks to this amendment? Isn't calling for hearings to look at changing it tantamout to supporting at least a discussion of repeal? What's more, some Republicans do support repeal, and the repeal chorus is growing louder.

So it seems fair to press McConnell for a direct answer on this question. And if someone does press him, it'll be interesting to hear what he says.

UPDATE, 3:10 p.m.: Senator Jon Kyl does not explicitly support partial repeal of the 14th amendment; he's merely leading the charge for hearings to look at it. I've edited the above to reflect this.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 3, 2010; 1:16 PM ET
Categories:  Immigration , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Still more proof Sarah Palin is toxic outside her bubble
Next: What's Anthony Weiner's position on Ground Zero mosque?

Comments

I sure hope the democrats have him on tape. This means this is a toxic issue if Mitch backed away. This is the guy who called the banks money in a fund to wind down failed banks so that the tax payers won't have to a bailout. He's not afraid of slightly toxic positions...

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews took the GOP (Lindsay Graham) to task on Hardball last night for supporting this outrageous idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#38528763

Racism is pretty much all the GOP knows when it comes to social policy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

TPM scares the bejeezus out of McShame on his support of hearings on the 14th Amendment:

TPMDC asked, "Do you support the Minority Leader's push for hearings into the repeal of birthright citizenship?"

"Sure, why not?" McCain said briefly.

"Do you support the idea itself?"

"I support the idea of having hearings," McCain said.

"Do you have a problem with the 14th amendment?" another reporter asked.

"You're changing the constitution of the United States," McCain said. "I support the concept of holding hearings."

"I support the concept of holding hearings," McCain repeated, turning to the rail car conductor.

"Let's go!" he snapped.

"I don't have anything to add to that."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/mccain-dodges-14th-amendment-repeal-questions.php

Yet another Republican Tea Party policy that explodes at first contact with sunlight.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, our crazy Uncle John McCain asks for a final question from the press at a news conference, and of course it's about the 14th amendment. What does he do? Abruptly departs and tries to run away. In hot pursuit, the press finally gets him to say, "I support the concept of holding hearings."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/mccain-dodges-14th-amendment-repeal-questions.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 3, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has truly become a despicable Demagogue on this issue.

Especially since he was not born on US soil.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking Of a Kentucky Politician:

These could turn out to be something that could really hurt Rand Paul. If the coal miners turn against him, it just might give Conway a shot at winning the Senate seat.


"Rand Paul faces resistance from coal miners, mine safety expert"


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/03/v-print/98546/rand-paul-faces-resistance-from.html

"August 03, 2010 01:09:46 PM

FRANKFORT — Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is coming under attack from union coal miners and a prominent mine safety expert for questioning the federal regulation of mining in a national magazine.

The comments attributed to Paul in Details, a monthly magazine published by Conde Nast Publications, reportedly came from a public appearance Paul made at the Harlan Center in Harlan County before the May 18 GOP primary election.

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul said in response to a question about a West Virginia mine explosion in April that killed 29 workers.

"The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines.

"You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs.""

Posted by: Liam-still | August 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

More news on how the Coal Miners are reacting to Rand Paul's "Safety Scmasty, just don't take the job, if your afraid" remarks:

"Members of the United Mine Workers from Kentucky have scheduled a news conference via phone Tuesday to take Paul to task for the remarks.

Tony Oppegard, a Lexington attorney who is a mine-safety advocate, called Paul's statement "idiotic."

He said it shows a lack of understanding of Eastern Kentucky, the region's economy and of the history of underground coal mining in the region, where for generations coal operators strongly opposed efforts by workers to form unions. In Harlan County, deadly battles over union organizing helped earned the county the nickname "Bloody Harlan."

Working conditions in underground mines are dangerous enough with federal and state rules, Oppegard said. If the industry were unregulated by government, "there would be a bloodbath," he said.

Paul is misinformed when he says no one would take jobs in mines that weren't safe, Oppegard said. Miners would take jobs even in unsafe mines because they need work, he said.

"There's no other job opportunities," Oppegard said.

He also said U.S. senators work on all kinds of legislation on which they are not experts. "What does he think senators do?""

Posted by: Liam-still | August 3, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews took the GOP (Lindsay Graham) to task on Hardball last night for supporting this outrageous idea:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#38528763

Racism is pretty much all the GOP knows when it comes to social policy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 1:35 PM
===========
Typical modern liberal answer.

When you don't want to face the real problems the country is facing and want to shut down a debate keep screaming racism.

Just proof you are one of the moonbats not worth debating.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

OT...

...natch Mine Workers, Safety Experts not all that psyched about Rand Paul's comments, schedule news conference:

Members of the United Mine Workers from Kentucky have scheduled a news conference via phone Tuesday to take Paul to task for the remarks.

Tony Oppegard, a Lexington attorney who is a mine-safety advocate, called Paul's statement "idiotic."

He said it shows a lack of understanding of Eastern Kentucky, the region's economy and of the history of underground coal mining in the region, where for generations coal operators strongly opposed efforts by workers to form unions. In Harlan County, deadly battles over union organizing helped earned the county the nickname "Bloody Harlan."

Working conditions in underground mines are dangerous enough with federal and state rules, Oppegard said. If the industry were unregulated by government, "there would be a bloodbath," he said.

Paul is misinformed when he says no one would take jobs in mines that weren't safe, Oppegard said. Miners would take jobs even in unsafe mines because they need work, he said.

"There's no other job opportunities," Oppegard said.

He also said U.S. senators work on all kinds of legislation on which they are not experts. "What does he think senators do?"

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/08/03/1374129/safety-advocate-pauls-comments.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

hehe, oops! Great minds, Liam... :)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Fear, hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division. The Republican agenda for America.

Posted by: thebobbob | August 3, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

cryos, go cry somewhere else. Meanwhile, read the history of the 14th amendment, and then read the US Supreme Court decision in US v Wong Kim Ark.

Your lack of any knowledge of the issue and history is showing.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 3, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't calling for hearings to look at changing it tantamout to supporting at least a discussion of repeal? What's more, some Republicans, such as Jon Kyl, do support repeal, and the repeal chorus is growing louder."

In any case, amending the constitution, or repealing an amendment, requires a approval by 2/3rds of our state legislatures, which is a pretty high bar to jump. Ain't gonna happen.

"Racism is pretty much all the GOP knows when it comes to social policy."

An excellent campaign slogan. I'm hoping the Democrats run with that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Sweden, Norway, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan don't grant automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil.

Is that because they are "racist"?

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm a liberal Democrat who SUPPORTS repealing the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

11 million Americans unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

You do the math.

Posted by: paul65 | August 3, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Next up for the newly insane Republican Party...repeal the 13th amendment:

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

That would REALLY fire up their base for November.

Posted by: wilder5121 | August 3, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

paul65: "Sweden, Norway, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan don't grant automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil.

I'm a liberal Democrat who SUPPORTS repealing the 14th Amendment.


Why? What is your reasoning? Because of what others do?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 3, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

@Paul65: "Sweden, Norway, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan don't grant automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil. Is that because they are 'racist'?"

No, and neither is the discussion of somehow repealing birthright citizenship. What it is is total fantasy. To repeal an amendment (and to repeal the 14th amendment would never, ever happen, and nobody on either side of the issue would want full repeal) and to otherwise amend the constitution would require either a constitutional convention, or an amendment approved by 2/3rds of our state legislatures, which isn't going to happen, either. Not on this.

Most folks, pundits and politicians, seem to be discussing the issue as if birthright citizenship is a matter of some piece of forgotten congressional legislation. It is not.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Well gee, if we're destined for a review of the 14th. amendment maybe we could rescind the part that gave corporations the rights of citizenship. That seems like a much better use of our time and since it seems likely McConnell, Kyl, Graham and now McCain are more interested in pandering to the base than anything, let's call them on it and review corporate "personhood" while we're at it.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 3, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"let's call them on it and review corporate "personhood" while we're at it."

Hear hear!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Benen has an excellent post up about all the changes the wingnuts would make to the Constitution. I guess it's not the perfect document they've been telling us it is...

IF ONLY THE RIGHT WOULD LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, CONT'D

By my count, Republican leaders, including George W. Bush, endorsed six different new amendments to the Constitution over the last decade: (1) prohibiting flag burning; (2) victims' rights; (3) banning abortion; (4) requiring a balanced budget; (5) prohibiting same-sex marriage; and (6) allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools. Jon Chait runs a similar list today, and notes a few I missed, including amendments to require legislative supermajorities to raise taxes, a "parental rights" amendment, a term-limits amendment, and in one instance, an amendment to give Washington, D.C., a single voting representative.

Taken together, that's 10 constitutional amendments proposed, endorsed, and/or introduced by leading Republicans over the last decade.

I'd call this many things, but "constitutional conservatism" -- a phrase repeated ad nauseum by Bachmann and the Tea Party crowd -- it isn't.

On top of the new amendments the right has requested, there's also the existing amendments the right wants to "fix." That means scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, and "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment.

It's as if the right has begun to look at the entire Constitution as little more than a rough draft, in desperate need of deft conservative editing. (What could possibly go wrong?)


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025024.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 3, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Liberal hero Anthony Weiner goes quiet on the Ground Zero mosque:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/whats_anthony_weiners_position.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 3, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

paul65...your math is fuzzy. I'll fix it for you.

Pre-George Bush:

3 million Americans unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

Post-George Bush:

11 million Americans unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

You do the math.

Posted by: wilder5121 | August 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

BTW Did anyone see Maddow's information on Arizona and immigration?

You'll be surprised to find out that Senator John Kyl is an ABSOLUTE LIAR or he is INCREDIBLY IGNORANT ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN HIS OWN STATE!

Speak to this Kevin. Which is it. Is Kyl ignorant or just a pandering liar?

Kyl (and in fairness so have all the other R's but Kyl is the FREAKING ARIZONA SENATOR AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER) has repeatedly claimed that crime is out of control in Arizona because of immigration.
When confronted by Harry Smith on CBS with the fact that crime is actually DROPPING Kyl became non plussed and blustered back at Smith..."you generalize...violent crimes and crimes against property have risen DRAMATICALLY) Maddow then said nothing partisan...she didn't have to...she simply put up the ACTUAL STATISTICS LIAR KYL IGNORES!
1.) Property crimes have gone DOWN every year for the past FOUR YEARS!!!
2.) Violent crime in Arizona has also seen a remarkable decline every year for the past four years.

Kyl has NO CONSCIENCE!!! But then he is a Republican and in 2010 saying a Republican has no conscience is an oxymoron. That's not simple namecalling wingnuts. I've just exposed very clearly that Kyl is a LIAR or INCREDIBLY IGNORANT! He doesn't have the morality to actually SERVE his nation...he serves himself and his party!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 3, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

"There's a time-honored tradition in Congress where people support hearings into something in order to avoid taking a position."

And there's an equally long time-honored tradition of the beltway media letting that bullsh*t tactic work.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 3, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

@paul65: "Sweden, Norway, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan don't grant automatic citizenship to American babies born on their soil."

They also don't follow the US constitution.

They also do have universal health care that is heavily subsidized by the government.

They also spend 1/10 of what the US spends on "defense".

They also have much higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy.

Why pick and choose, lets go back to being a colony of Britain to enjoy all their laws.
T

Posted by: srw3 | August 3, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Hearings, my derriere. Shut him down rhetorically *now*. Either he wants to amend the Constitution or he doesn't. Thats what it boils down to.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | August 3, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"11 million Americans unemployed.
11 million illegal workers in the U.S.
You do the math."
Posted by: paul65

Hey paul65, I live in an agricultural communithy and I just did the math:
Number of Americans who will stoop all day in field picking vegetables? 0 (zero)

Posted by: jjedif | August 3, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is far too gutless to state what he actually believes in public.

Posted by: jjedif | August 3, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

cryos, go cry somewhere else. Meanwhile, read the history of the 14th amendment, and then read the US Supreme Court decision in US v Wong Kim Ark.

Your lack of any knowledge of the issue and history is showing.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 3, 2010 2:07 PM
=============
Hey moonbat I was responding to the typical "racist racist racist" nonanswer from liberals. Maybe you need to go cry somewhere else.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Is this any surprise? For decades the Republican/Tea Party has built itself by directly and indirectly appealing to racial/ethnic bigotry.

But to offer some clarity to the discussion, here's the actual language of first paragraph of the 14th Amendment:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yet despite the direct appeal to bigotry by the Republicans, you've got to wonder if it really does make sense for a child born in the U.S. of people here illegally to automatically become an American citizen? The more I think about it, the more I wonder as to the rationality and appropriateness of this policy.

What's the right thing to do? I don't know. But it might be reasonable to identify the extent of this issue -- how many children are born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants each year? Let's get a factual handle on this. It could be a small number; it could be a large number. But the facts would help identify if the numbers are huge enough to warrant touching the Constitution, which should be amended rarely.

But let's try a rational discussion rather than the usual poisoned rhetoric that permeate these comment boards.

Posted by: dl49 | August 3, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"let's call them on it and review corporate "personhood" while we're at it."

Hear hear!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 2:21 PM
===============
So all non-corporations that can run ads were already people right?

I guess you're more of the book banning type.

The government claimed the law gives them the right to ban books and pamphlets. That's what Kagan and the previous government lawyer argued.

Educate yourself on the merits of the case. If claiming the law allows the government to ban political speech doesn't scare you I don't even know what to say.

Maybe you can go have a good book burning while you're at it.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

But let's try a rational discussion rather than the usual poisoned rhetoric that permeate these comment boards.

Posted by: dl49 | August 3, 2010 3:43 PM
=============
Maybe first you can lead by example by not filling your post with ignorant "racist racist racist." That would be a start.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding: "Speak to this Kevin. Which is it. Is Kyl ignorant or just a pandering liar?"

Well, when I was last having caviar and cigars with him . . . oh, wait, I don't know him. Were I to guess, I'd guess that he's probably pandering for votes. Or is too busy doing important politician work to check his facts before he starts pontificating on national television.

@jjedif: "I live in an agricultural communithy and I just did the math: Number of Americans who will stoop all day in field picking vegetables? 0"

I think you mean: "for the same or less money than illegal immigrants, so that latte liberals and the Birkenstock crowd get relatively cheap organic and 'locally grown' produce" . . . 0. Pay me $150,000 a year, and I'll stoop all day in a field a pick vegetables. I wager you would, too.

There's really no such thing as a job that _no_ Americans will do, there are just jobs that 99% of Americans won't do for the money certain people want to pay them. As long as illegal immigrants help depress the wages in those industries, sure, those are jobs "Americans won't do". But if there were no illegal immigrants available to do the work, I expect the work would get done somehow. Prices might rise, though. And we also might see more automation.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

There's really no such thing as a job that _no_ Americans will do, there are just jobs that 99% of Americans won't do for the money certain people want to pay them. As long as illegal immigrants help depress the wages in those industries, sure, those are jobs "Americans won't do". But if there were no illegal immigrants available to do the work, I expect the work would get done somehow. Prices might rise, though. And we also might see more automation.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:07 PM
====================
Yep agricultural industries like for example the citrus industry have automated machines in the works.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

Your attempt to twist my comment into a validation of Nazi book burning is not only ludicrous on its face, but it speaks to your total lack of integrity and decency.

Many of my relatives were killed in the Holocaust. Men, women, children. Incinerated. Poisoned. Forced to dig their own graves. Starved to the bone like living corpses.

While you may think of the Nazi regime as entertainment for your own sick partisan political purposes, the reality is that the Nazis are responsible for the most degrading and despicable human-induced calamity in history.

That you would stoop to such a ridiculously abhorrent level as calling me a Nazi tells us more about you and your utter lack of integrity and decency towards fellow human beings than anything else.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

@dl49: "Is this any surprise? For decades the Republican/Tea Party has built itself by directly and indirectly appealing to racial/ethnic bigotry."

@wilder5121: "Next up for the newly insane Republican Party...repeal the 13th amendment . . . That would REALLY fire up their base for November."

I am so looking forward to voting against Democrats in November. I'm hoping it's a rout. Not counting on it, but I'm sure hoping for it.

The Republican base would be excited about repealing the 13th amendment and restoring slavery? Funny. I'm just hoping I wake up laughing about a hilarious takeover of the house, and maybe senate, in November.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 4:14 PM
============
You obviously misunderstood my post or are just intentionally trying to change the subject and appeal to emotion.

Quit with your projection and attacks and focus on the issue. You are obviously scarred and disturbed.

Banning political speech and books was a cornerstone in the court decision for free speech and corporations and your trying to changing the subject and attacking me doesn't change that.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

You obviously have no interest in talking about political speech. Your entire point in posting your outrageous screed was to call me a Nazi. Otherwise, how would you get from banning books to BURNING them?

"Maybe you can go have a good book burning while you're at it."

Go F yourself, disgusting POS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan and Cryos: "'Maybe you can go have a good book burning while you're at it.' -- 'Go F yourself, disgusting POS.'"

Somehow, I'm pretty sure this conversation would be going differently, if Ethan and Cryos were doing it face to face. The insulation of semi-anonymity provided by comment boards certainly hasn't done much for civility, even as it's actually made much more discussion possible.

Ah, well. You kids have fun with that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"let's call them on it and review corporate "personhood" while we're at it."

Hear hear!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 2:21 PM
===============
So all non-corporations that can run ads were already people right?

I guess you're more of the book banning type.

The government claimed the law gives them the right to ban books and pamphlets. That's what Kagan and the previous government lawyer argued.

Educate yourself on the merits of the case. If claiming the law allows the government to ban political speech doesn't scare you I don't even know what to say.
=============
Care to discuss it now Ethan? Kagan and the previous government lawyer argued for banning political speech.

Contrary to your opinion that is the main point I want to discuss. My intention was not to call you a Nazi I think that's ridiculous, but I am sorry if you think that was my intention.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan and Cryos: "'Maybe you can go have a good book burning while you're at it.' -- 'Go F yourself, disgusting POS.'"

Somehow, I'm pretty sure this conversation would be going differently, if Ethan and Cryos were doing it face to face. The insulation of semi-anonymity provided by comment boards certainly hasn't done much for civility, even as it's actually made much more discussion possible.

Ah, well. You kids have fun with that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:36 PM
==============
Yeah I'm guilty of egging things on which is my fault. I should fix that.

I am just really tired of liberals (and Ethan in particular in other threads) calling me a racist which is a HUGE insult.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

@Cryos: "I am just really tired of liberals (and Ethan in particular in other threads) calling me a racist which is a HUGE insult."

Well, far be it for me to give unsolicited advice (that's sarcasm, folks, of the gently self-deprecating variety), but if I'm not more gentle and lighter in tone than those I disagree with, I'm failing. I try very hard to avoid name-calling, allusions to Nazi germany, hyperbole (Socialism is something specific, just as racism is something specific, I like to try and use the best terms I can think of, as opposed to exaggerating for effect).

But, each accusation of bigotry and racism will just make pulling the lever for Republicans in November that much sweeter. Really, they're doing me a favor.

Given the behavior of the less-than-inspiration (imho) of the Republicans, I should be glad they're going to such an effort to keep my excited.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

@Paul = "11 million Americans unemployed.

11 million illegal workers in the U.S.

You do the math."

I guess all we need now is a bus that holds 11 million or a republican to belly up to the table so we can legislate them out of those jobs. Obama has increased enforcement but Republican's are crying about that also. You sure they want anything more than controversy?


@jjedif = "Hey paul65, I live in an agricultural communithy and I just did the math: Number of Americans who will stoop all day in field picking vegetables? 0 (zero)"

I beg to differ, plenty will do the picking just not at $00.20 a tray. The pickers union wants a fair wage and don't say it will raise the rates of our groceries, it SHOULD reduce the profits of the distributors and corporate farmers...

Posted by: soapm | August 3, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 4:59 PM
==============
Agreed hence my last post.

However I think that in this case Ethan was finding an excuse to not discuss the issue at hand.

I am tired of the "corporate personhood" argument used to try to promote a partisan campaign finance bill.

Although unlimited corporate contributions are not a good thing the fact the government argued it could ban a 400 page book for a sentence of political speech from any corporation (think publishers) is scarier.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your apology. I accept it.

"I am just really tired of liberals (and Ethan in particular in other threads) calling me a racist which is a HUGE insult."

You obviously have something wrong with you that you would egg people on by calling them Nazis and the like. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you actually are a racist even as you say that you find that insulting.

As to your bullsh*t right wing screed du jour:

Kagan never said "it's fine if the law bans books"; she specifically argued that federal law had never banned books and likely could not do so. The video promoted by right-wing media is taken from audio of Kagan's September 2009 Supreme Court argument in the case Citizens United v. FEC, which is related to corporate funding in elections, in which Kagan argued on behalf of the federal government. At no point in the video or during her argument did Kagan state that "it's fine if the law bans books." In the video, she stated that if the government tried to ban books under campaign finance laws, "there would be quite good as-applied challenge" to the law, meaning that the corporation attempting to publish the book would have a good constitutional case that the book couldn't be banned. Kagan later added: "[W]hat we're saying is that there has never been an enforcement action for books. Nobody has ever suggested -- nobody in Congress, nobody in the administrative apparatus has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem, so I think that there would be a good as-applied challenge with respect to that."

Breitbart TV: "Kagan's own words: It's fine if the law bans books because government won't really enforce it."

Drudge: "Kagan's Own Words: It's Fine If Law Bans Books Because Government Won't Really Enforce It." On June 28, the Drudge Report linked to the video on Breitbart.tv with the headline, "Kagan's Own Words: It's Fine If Law Bans Books Because Government Won't Really Enforce It."

Gateway Pundit: "Elena Kagan: 'It's Fine If the Law Bans Books.' "

Fox Nation "Kagan: It's Fine If the Law Bans Books."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006290008

Meanwhile, this could shed some light on why "Cryos" goes around calling anyone he disagrees with a book-burning Nazi:

"""The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who's writing a book on Beck, recently added up the post-Obama inauguration references on Beck's Fox show to Nazis or Nazism (202), Adolf Hitler (147), fascism (193), and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (24)."""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100803/cm_yblog_upshot/becks-holocaust-comments-prompt-fox-news-meeting

Cryos,

You have no ideas. You don't understand what it means to be factually correct. You have nothing to say that is valid. All of your research is total bunk. And you sit here attacking me for no reason other than, essentially, "Andrew Breitbart told me to."

F off and F you, pos.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 5:07 PM
=======
Wow you should seek a psychiatrist.

I based my info off of the discussions between Kagan and the SCOTUS. Kagan argued for "pamphlets" not books. THe previous lawyer argued for books.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Ethan go check out the articles from the AP on the Kagan hearings. You should stay away from mediamatters it is making you insane.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Haha. Why would I waste any more time on a pathetic chump like you and your bullsh*t Fox hype stories?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 3, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan: "You have no ideas. You don't understand what it means to be factually correct. You have nothing to say that is valid. All of your research is total bunk. And you sit here attacking me."

@Cryos: "You should stay away from mediamatters it is making you insane. Wow you should seek a psychiatrist."

I don't remember the specifics, but there have been studies established that no communication is taking place when you tell somebody else how they are, what they are feeling, who their motivations are. That constructive discussion is actually about "I" and what your positions are. Although, there is, of course, a sort of fun one-upmanship about telling people that they don't know anything, or that they're racists, or that they're crazy. There is no actual communication.

It should also be of interest to the speaker that they're constructive criticism isn't penetrating. It's rare than anybody is told, "you need a psychiatrist [for disagreeing with me on some issue]" or "You don't understand what it means to be factually correct [because if you did you would agree with me]", and finds themselves reflecting on the weaknesses of their own argument.

I'm just sayin'. Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 3, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I love how the liberal media, including Ezra, decry this as some kind of abuse or racism. The amendment was intended for black slaves the Dred Scott case a decade before specifically excluded blacks from citizenship.

Do you think people from China flying over here to have babies or Mexican mothers driving up to hospitals to have kids is what is intended or even proper?

Posted by: cleancut77 | August 3, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Just FYI on the corporation free speech issue Ethan. You can read Kagan's deputy and Kagan's arguments in the transcripts.

Then please try telling me that they were not arguing for the banning of books or pamphlets.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

There's no need to repeal anything.
We just need to interpret the amendment as written.

Progressives use legal precedence rather than the wording, or even the stated intent of the actual amendment.
After 140 years, the law is perverted to the point where it's main purpose is to make something that's illegal, legal by generations of stare decisis.
(Which is exactly why conservatives want constructionists in the federal courts)

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

See, words mean things.
Just being here doesn't equate to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan--the author of the Citizenship Clause, described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The only way the fourteenth amendment, as written, should be used as a basis to grant citizenship, is if a parent is here legally.
If they aren't here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
That is why children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are excluded.
If there is no way to ensure that they follow the same laws, pay the same taxes,...or we can even know who they are, then they are not subject to our legal jurisdiction.

Posted by: MrMeaner | August 3, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

This was already settled in debate over the 14th Amendment back in 1867-68 (that "migrant workers" will have children in the US was an acceptable outcome and was not intended to protect African Americans ONLY) and definitively settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (the Fuller Court, 1898: the 14th Amendment covers all races and ethnicities, which is implied in original intent by stating ALL PERSONS).

Posted by: jebeasley | August 4, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I think this is hilarious. If liberal media hadn't decided to rip apart Rand Paul by pouncing on and nationalizing everything he said, this wouldn't have entered the campaign issues of other candidates.

Happy with yourselves?

And how come NOW liberal media is going nuts when over 90 Congressmen cosponsored a bill to do the same thing last year, without a whisper from media?

Posted by: sailingaway1 | August 4, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company