Last week, riders on the political crazy train stopped off in Iowa to create a whole new insane plank in the Iowa GOP's official platform -- the restoration of a never-ratified version of the 13th amendment that would, in a complicated interpretation, strip President Barack Obama of his citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and essentially undo every act of the federal government dating back to 1819.
But that was last week! This week, everyone's moved on the the 14th amendment, which among other things, guarantees birthright citizenship.
See, the big scary issue now is "anchor babies." Infants born in the United States have the right to claim U.S. citizenship. Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform see "anchor babies" as one means by which Mexico reconquers the United States. An even more fringey take on the matter imagines that al Qaeda death cultists might come to the United States, give birth, and create the ultimate weapon: an infant sleeper agent that might one day grow up, go to school, suffer the indignities of dating, feel alienated from their high school peers, attend an expensive college that offers very little in the way of securing decent employment, and eventually decide the whole thing isn't worth it and the only recourse is to set one's crotch on fire for Osama bin Laden.
Seems like onlyyesterday this very minute that you could go to GOP.com, and see the enactment of the 14th amendment listed as one of the Republican party's proud achievements. But now, too many Republican lawmakers have become convinced that the aforementioned scenarios are cunning plots guaranteed to lead to straight-up tyranny, so they are calling for the amendment to be reformed.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says birthright citizenship is "a mistake". Senator John Kyl supports the repeal of the amendment. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants the little train that takes senators between the Senate and the Russell Senate Office Building to leave before he has to answer any questions about it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says...well, he hasn't said anything yet, I think. But I have to imagine that he'd probably say, "Hey, I received citizenship through birthright, so could we maybe chill with this 14th amendment talk?"
This bizarre debate is making for some strange bedfellows. For instance, when's the last time you heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reading a Michael Gerson column aloud to America?
As we've already seen in Maine, some strange ideas are being folded into the emerging revisions of various state GOP platforms. But something truly bizarre is happening in Iowa.
Newsweek's Jerry Adler has paged through some "387 enumerated planks" of the Republican Party of Iowa's platform and, among the instances of "North American Union" paranoia and the upholding of manure as the only agricultural poopinveighed imbued by its creator with American exceptionalism, is a bizarre plan to strip President Barack Obama of his citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. What the what?
As Adler explains, the Iowa GOP is calling for the "reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th amendment" of the Constitution. The first wrinkle here is that the current 13th Amendment is a rather important one: it bans slavery. But that's the "bad optics" side of "Thirteentherism." Here's the side that is, as they say, "cray-cray" -- this is, in part, what the original 13th amendment said:
This is the part where Obama, having accepted a Nobel Prize from the Nobel Committee -- five people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament -- gets stripped of his citizenship. Presumably, this takes care of all sorts of other Nobel laureates, like former President Jimmy Carter, author Toni Morrison, Energy secretary Steven Chu, and economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Have fun in your new home in Oslo, everyone!
Oh, and also, say goodbye to every lawyer in America!
Per Jason Hancock:
UPDATE: A reader points out that among the acts of the Federal government that would be delegitimized by a restoration/ratification of the unratified original 13th Amendment would be the act that gave statehood to Iowa, which happened in 1846.
RELATED:
Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment [Newsweek]
Iowa GOP jumps on the 'Thirteenther' bandwagon [Iowa Independent]
Iowa GOP Supports Amendment To Strip Obama's Citizenship Because He Won The Nobel Peace Prize [ThinkProgress]
But that was last week! This week, everyone's moved on the the 14th amendment, which among other things, guarantees birthright citizenship.
See, the big scary issue now is "anchor babies." Infants born in the United States have the right to claim U.S. citizenship. Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform see "anchor babies" as one means by which Mexico reconquers the United States. An even more fringey take on the matter imagines that al Qaeda death cultists might come to the United States, give birth, and create the ultimate weapon: an infant sleeper agent that might one day grow up, go to school, suffer the indignities of dating, feel alienated from their high school peers, attend an expensive college that offers very little in the way of securing decent employment, and eventually decide the whole thing isn't worth it and the only recourse is to set one's crotch on fire for Osama bin Laden.
Seems like only
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says birthright citizenship is "a mistake". Senator John Kyl supports the repeal of the amendment. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants the little train that takes senators between the Senate and the Russell Senate Office Building to leave before he has to answer any questions about it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says...well, he hasn't said anything yet, I think. But I have to imagine that he'd probably say, "Hey, I received citizenship through birthright, so could we maybe chill with this 14th amendment talk?"
This bizarre debate is making for some strange bedfellows. For instance, when's the last time you heard Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reading a Michael Gerson column aloud to America?
Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.
But the most remarkable news on this whole matter comes from Alex Seitz-Wald, who points out that somehow proponents of 14th amendment reform have managed to move to the right of Alan Keyes:They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.
KEYES: The 14th Amendment is not something that one should play with lightly. I noticed, finally, that Linsey Graham, used the term -- as people have carelessly done over the years -- referring to the 14th Amendment as something that has to do with birthright citizenship, and that we should get rid of birthright citizenship. Now let me see, if birthright citizenship is not a birthright, then it must be a grant of the government. And if it is a grant of the government, then it could be curtailed in all the ways that fascists and totalitarians always want to.I think that anytime you find yourself saying, "Alan Keyes is making sense," you have truly landed in some undiscovered country.
I think we ought to be real careful before we adopt a view we want to say that citizenship is not a reflection of our unalienable rights. It is not a grant of government, but arises from a set of actual conditions, starting with the rule of God, that constrain government to respect the rights of the people, and therefore the rights that involve the claim of citizenship. Those are really deep, serious issues, and when the amendment was written, and when it was first referred to in the Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court declared that they knew they were touching on something that was absolutely fundamental. And I think before we play games with it in any way, we need to remember that ourselves.
Iowa GOP Embraces Plan To Strip Obama's Citizenship For Accepting Nobel Prize [UPDATE]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/iowa-gop-embraces-plan-to_n_663621.html Newsweek's Jerry Adler has paged through some "387 enumerated planks" of the Republican Party of Iowa's platform and, among the instances of "North American Union" paranoia and the upholding of manure as the only agricultural poop
As Adler explains, the Iowa GOP is calling for the "reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th amendment" of the Constitution. The first wrinkle here is that the current 13th Amendment is a rather important one: it bans slavery. But that's the "bad optics" side of "Thirteentherism." Here's the side that is, as they say, "cray-cray" -- this is, in part, what the original 13th amendment said:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."That language was originally considered by the states in 1810 but, as Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent points out, "The amendment was ratified by 12 states but never got the 13th state that it needed, and thus, never became law."
This is the part where Obama, having accepted a Nobel Prize from the Nobel Committee -- five people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament -- gets stripped of his citizenship. Presumably, this takes care of all sorts of other Nobel laureates, like former President Jimmy Carter, author Toni Morrison, Energy secretary Steven Chu, and economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Have fun in your new home in Oslo, everyone!
Oh, and also, say goodbye to every lawyer in America!
In the world of the Thirteenthers, though, it's all a conspiracy, and the leading suspects are those shady characters who put "esquire" after their names. To quote the Web site Constitutional Concepts, "This Amendment was for the specific purpose of banning participation in government operations by attorneys and bankers who claimed the Title of Nobility of 'Esquire.' These people had joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association and owed their allegiance to the King of England." In other words--well, we're not sure how to explain it any better, but Constitutional Concepts CEO Jim Barrus says in an e-mail that enforcement of the 13th Amendment would strike a blow against "the elected politicians who have grand plans of ruling every facet of America," and would essentially delegitimize virtually every act of the federal government since 1819. Who wouldn't want that?Adler confirms that Iowa GOP spokesperson Danielle Plogmann intends this platform plank as "a statement about the delegates' opinion about Mr. Obama receiving the prize." But the paranoiac Thirteenther take this unserious matter very seriously.
Naturally, most lawyers see it differently. "The esquire thing is ridiculous," says R. B. Bernstein, a professor at New York Law School and author of Amending America. "'Esquire' is not a title of nobility. Back then, they were worried about people accepting literal titles of aristocracy that convey land or privileges, things you can leave to your kids." Lawyers obviously command certain privileges, but they are not inherited.
Per Jason Hancock:
Some, however, argue that it was ratified and have a plethora of conspiracy theories to back up their assertion. These folks, known as "Thirteenthers," believe that since the amendment would have banned lawyers and bankers from serving in government (since they joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association, respectively), every act of the federal government since 1819 would be delegitimized.Wow. Just... wow.
UPDATE: A reader points out that among the acts of the Federal government that would be delegitimized by a restoration/ratification of the unratified original 13th Amendment would be the act that gave statehood to Iowa, which happened in 1846.
RELATED:
Why Some Republicans Want to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment [Newsweek]
Iowa GOP jumps on the 'Thirteenther' bandwagon [Iowa Independent]
Iowa GOP Supports Amendment To Strip Obama's Citizenship Because He Won The Nobel Peace Prize [ThinkProgress]
No comments:
Post a Comment