Skip to main content

By Deborah J. Vagins and Joanne Lin, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Clashing perceptions of our Constitution last week led to dissonant messages about the importance of defending our founding charter. The new 112th Congress kicked off the session with a reading of the document in the House of Representatives, a laudable expression of fidelity to first principles of American law and government. Describing the impetus behind the House’s homage, Speaker John Boehner said that a core theme of his tenure will be "respecting the Constitution." We commend showing respect for the Constitution and hope that both parties will work to uphold the whole document.

What an unpleasant surprise, then, that the day before the new House celebrated our Constitution there were two assaults launched on a signal constitutional achievement: the 14th Amendment. The ACLU has strongly rejected both proposals.

First, a handful of state legislators held a national press conference last week at which they made clear that they wish to abolish the constitutional citizenship guaranteed by the words of the 14th Amendment: "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." The ACLU urged rejection of this dangerous state proposal.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was meant to help mend a violent tear in the fabric of our country by putting citizenship above the politics and prejudices of any given era. The amendment’s intent, repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, was to guarantee equal citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil (except children born to diplomats or invading soldiers), regardless of the status of their parents. It overturned one of the Supreme Court’s most infamous rulings, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held in 1857 that neither freed slaves nor their descendants could ever become U.S. citizens. And later, in 1898, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the U.S. citizenship of children born here to Chinese migrant workers who were excluded from citizenship themselves.

Second, on the same day, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced a bill, which poked holes in efforts to respect the Constitution. The King bill would amend the immigration laws so that birth on U.S. soil would no longer guarantee citizenship. Under this legislation, only children born to at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent would be granted citizenship at birth (with an exception for parents on active service in the armed forces).  The ACLU urged the House to reject Rep. King’s bill aimed at subverting constitutional citizenship.

Rep. King has claimed that ending birthright citizenship through statute makes sense because it is "easier to do" than changing the 14th Amendment. However, it is a well-established principle of American law that the Constitution can only be altered through amendment, not by simple legislation. But even more than that, fidelity to American constitutional principles is inconsistent with this attempt to undermine the very guarantee of equality that is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Many prominent conservative leaders have criticized attempts to tamper with the 14th Amendment, including Alan Keyes, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Alberto Gonzales, Linda Chavez, Cesar Conda, Mark McKinnon, and Michael Gerson. Asked about his position on changing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, Lou Dobbs said: "Absolutely not. I’m one of those who is very, very reserved when it comes to the idea of changing the Constitution for any reason whatsoever. . . . To tamper with the Constitution and to take away constitutional rights . . . I object to it."  In former Texas Solicitor General James Ho’s view, attackers of the guarantee of constitutional citizenship "cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then, in the same breath, propose policies that violate our Constitution."

Most recently, national civil and human rights organizations and legal scholars have joined to form a new coalition, Americans for Constitutional Citizenship, to defend the 14th Amendment. Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, emphasized that "[f]or the first time since the end of the Civil War, these legislators . . . would create two tiers of citizens — a modern-day caste system — with potentially millions of natural-born Americans being treated as somehow less than entitled to the equal protection of the laws that our nation has struggled so hard to guarantee."

Here’s hoping that the House of Representatives’ commitment to the Constitution resonates with Rep. King and the state legislators, whose proposals do not respect our Constitution, but tear holes in its fabric and the values it so eloquently expresses.

Originally posted to ACLU on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it all hangs on (0+ / 0-)

    what this clause means...

    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    according to Congressman James Wilson (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee 39th Congress)

    "We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."

  •  Rep. King's idea restricting the 2nd ammendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DigDug, buddabelly, theatre goon

    is also disgusting.

  •  Not the worst (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    there's also a proposal that children of undocumented migrants are citizens, but that states don't have to provide them with birth certificates or any other proof of citizenship.  Kafka lives.

    Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

    by happymisanthropy on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 12:39:53 PM PST

  •  I think Inorporaiton should have been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    mentioned too in this diary even though thats not whats being attacked by these proposals.

    Birthright citizenship is an important part of the 14th Amend, but so is "Incorporation of the BORs" and it just seem like a glaring omission not to mention it, especially since this is a diary by the ACLU.

  •  I think the whole "respecting the Constitution" (0+ / 0-)

    thing got off to a bad start even before these attacks on the 14th amendment, when they couldn't be bothered to read the entire Constitution, omitting sections that might lead people to believe that perhaps it wasn't a perfect document.

    These people don't really care about the ideas or institutions expressed in the Constitution. To them, the Constitution is a substitute for the Bible. It's received, authoritative perfect wisdom which just happens to say exactly what they want it to say.

  •  Given the fact that (0+ / 0-)

    any legislative changes to citizenship are doomed the instant they hit the Federal courts, I think that calling this an "assault on the 14th Amendment" is just a wee bit hyperbolic.

    More like Don Quixote assaulting a windmill.


    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 05:50:17 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site