The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
Politics

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): 14th Amendment outdated

5:06 PM 08/04/2010
interns

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday night argued that the 14th Amendment no longer serves the purpose it was designed to address and that Congress should reexamine granting citizenship to any child born in the United States.

The 14th Amendment was passed following the Civil War out of fear that southern states would try to find a way to deny citizenship to freed slaves.

“I’m looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said. “You’ve got the other problem, where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona/Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there.”

Graham also pointed to tourists who, he says, come to the United States on 90-day visa during the later stage of pregnancy in order to give birth to a child with U.S. citizenship.

“That, to me, cheapens American citizenship. That’s not the way I would like it to be awarded,” he said.

The line in question in the amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …”

Full story: Graham: 14th Amendment outdated – Andy Barr – POLITICO.com

Tags: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, Congress, Graham, International relations, Law and crime, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

  • Pingback: Michael C. Behrent » Blog Archive » Recrudescence de l’intolérance aux Etats-Unis

  • letsbehonest

    Someone needs to start a new group. Republican Constitutional Constructionist Against the Constitution (or hypocrits for short).

  • hempstead1944

    Wonder when Lindsey will change parties? He has that Arlen look to him…..

  • votersofny

    …the Solicitor General can simply drop a case if he or she considers the government’s prior official position to be unjust, even if the government has already won in lower court.

    And that’s what happened.

    • votersofny
    • votersofny

      Maybe this is better. From justice.gov.

      The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court.

      • frouglas

        You’re confusing Kagan’s waiving of the government’s rights to respond with the dismissing of the case. Yes, in many of those cases Elena Kagan was the lawyer representing the government (her job as solicitor general). Yes, in many of those cases she declined to dignify the cases with a response.

        However, from the Supreme Court Rules (http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf):

        Part 3, Rule 10: “Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion.”

        Judicial discretion: the Supreme Court decides. NOT the Solicitor General.

        Part 3, Rule 15: “1. A brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed by the respondent in any case, but is not mandatory except in a capital case, see Rule 14.1(a), or when or­ dered by the Court.”

        Filing a response is not necessary. So the Supreme Court Rules clearly state that the Government does not need to respond.

        Part 3, Rule 16: “1. After considering the documents distributed under Rule 15, the Court will enter an appropriate order. The order may be a summary disposition on the merits.”

        The Court (not the Solicitor General) decides which cases to take up.

        As to your second quote, from justice.gov:

        “The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court.”

        The key here is that while she chooses which the government wishes to bring before the Court. However, the government is not the only party to bring cases before the Supreme Court. In each of the cases you cited, the suit was brought by a non-governmental individual or group. In one of the cases you cited (09-724), the government filed a response and the Supreme Court took up the case, but suspended consideration because the point had become moot due to the Citizens United decision. In another (09a381), the petitioner applied for an extension and had their extension granted. There has been no further action, and the government has not filed or declined to file anything, because they have nothing to respond to.

        You can disagree with Kagan’s confirmation, but you can’t do it on that basis. The Supreme Court, not the Solicitor
        General, dismissed those cases.

        and classicliberal: i believe you are right (though the picture has since been removed). i got my old white men confused.

  • CLASSICLIBERAL

    Nope – Sen. Sessions

  • votersofny

    We have to vote this RINO out when the time comes. This bum is voting for Kagan along with the other RINOs from Maine and a couple other pieces of turds.

    By the way, Kagan was the Solicitor General and a few of the lawsuits files against Obama asking to see his original birth certificate. She threw them out of court. I wonder if Obumbler is paying her back or that was the deal to begin with. EIther way, this is something that should be looked into before they vote.

    • frouglas

      you don’t seem to be aware of the fact that the solicitor general can’t throw cases out of court. the solicitor general argues cases, judges throw them out.

  • frouglas

    looks an awful lot like orrin hatch to me…