Sen. Kay Hagan's Office Defends Birthright Citizenship

A couple of days ago, I called my two senators, whom supposedly represent the state of North Carolina, on their position of the upcoming immigration bill making its way through the upper chamber.  Both offices gave the same response.  Neither has an opinion because they anticipate many amendments will alter the bill.  Alright, that’s fair.

I stated that the bill being bandied about in the Senate is not true immigration reform, but just another version of the failed Simpson-Mazzoli Act.  Furthermore, the states’ must have the ability to enforce immigration laws, and that birthright citizenship must come to an end.  Besides, what good is border security when the commander-in-chief refuses to enforce current laws?  Senator Burr’s office thanked me for my input.  Senator Hagan’s would have none of it.

Her Democratic aide and I began a spirited debate on the finer points of the 14^th Amendment.  He instructed me that it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish birthright citizenship.  I informed him that the Supreme Court bastardized the intent and meaning of the 14^th, and that only Congress has the authority to set the rules for naturalization; not nine unelected judges.

What surprised me was his response, “The authors should have done a better job of writing the amendment.”  He further stated that only the words matter, not the context for which it was wrote.  Here is the matter of contention in Section One:

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.

 Senator Hagan’s aide emphasized the first sentence, and particularly ‘the jurisdiction thereof.'  I argue, if birthright citizenship were the intent of the authors, then why didn’t they just write, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”?  Why didn’t they just leave it at that?  Because, birthright citizenship was not the intent, that’s why.

The 14^th is a post civil war amendment.  It was established to ensure that ex-slaves and their progeny were guaranteed rights of citizenship.  Furthermore, the majority of this amendment was designed to punish the South.  Those who participated in the rebellion were disenfranchised.  They were not allowed to vote, or hold public office.  They were also forced to pay Northern war debts.  I, of course, related the context to which the 14^th was written.  Needless to say, Senator Hagan’s aide was completely ignorant of the true meaning of this amendment.

I have argued before, and will again, that the 14^th Amendment is an outdated civil war relic, and must be repealed.  It has outlived its usefulness, and is currently undermining our federalist system.  If you need any proof of that, just take a look at our illegal alien invasion.

 

Source:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Sen. Richard Burr Introduces Bill to Merge EPA with Dept. of Energy

Senator Richard Burr introduced a bill that would merge the Department of Energy and the EPA.  The reasoning for this conflation is to cut cost at the federal level:

Burr, R-N.C., said the merger would result in $3 billion in savings next year, but critics counter that such a move would weaken the government's role in protecting the environment.

Burr introduced the bill Thursday. It has 16 co-sponsors, all Republicans. Burr acknowledged Monday that the bill doesn't have a good chance being heard in committee, a required for step for it to reach the full Senate. The best chance for the bill would be for someone in the House to propose a similar bill, he said.

Burr said he filed the bill in response to a report from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's recommendation to shrink the size of the federal workforce

I have a better idea.  Why don’t we abolish both of these agencies?  These two departments are responsible for costing both businesses and Americans billions of dollars a year in burdensome regulations.  NewsMax reported the cost of doing business in today’s America:

 Even as politicians and pundits debate taxes and spending — and spar over the difference between debt and deficit — an economic bogeyman lurks in the closet: government regulations that cost the economy nearly $2 trillion a year.

That staggering figure comes courtesy of Wayne Crews, policy vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who scrutinized the 81,405 pages of the Federal Registry. That catalog chronicles the nation’s regulations on businesses and state and local governments.

Crews' report, titled Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, contends that government regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion in 2008.

Of course the nanny staters believe that the abolition of these two oppressive agencies would mean that businesses would have a free reign on polluting our air and water.  To them Americans would live in squalor without their constant oversight.   

Source: http://www2.journalnow.com/topics/types/person/tags/erskine-bowles/

 'Hidden Tax': Govt Rules Cost Economy Nearly $2 Trillion