Just out of curiousity...

[Big Train]

I was thinking about this last night. Our forefathers meant for our Constitution to be a "living, breathing document" meaning it should not be fixed as is but should change over time. I was trying to remember if anything major has changed about it in the last 40 years or so (post civil rights) and I don't think anything has.

My question is: What in the Constitution should be added, changed or removed in your view?

For me, I think the "every child born on american soil is an american" provision (no idea what it's called) should be removed. "Give me your tired, huddled masses" came at a time when our country was empty (of Europeans anyway). Now, as an LA resident, I feel comfortable saying "it's full". The "Anchor Baby" phenom is what is the lynchpin of the immigration debate which causes so many problems for people on both sides of the issue. So why not just get rid of it?

Should the 2nd amendment be modified? You can have a weapon, just need to not keep it on you (say in a rifle range safe for you sport shooters)?

What do you think needs fixing?

[FORD]

I know the "anchor baby" thing makes it easier for illegal aliens to stay in this country, but if we start amending the constitution to say that certain people born here are NOT citizens, it sets a dangerous precedent. Supposedly there were provisions in "Patriot Act II" to strip US citizenship of those determined to be a "threat" to the "United States", and as in all "Patriot Act" documents, the definitions of the terms were deliberately left as wide open and vague as possible. So yes, it would be quite possible for Chimpy to declare someone a "non-citizen" for purely political reasons, and then attempt to justify it with a "national security" excuse.

Any SANE court would declare it unconstitutional (though who knows what a Bush appointed judge would do) but if you already established a legal reason for removing citizenship, then it might be easier to argue in favor of the fascist political tricks.

[Big Train]

Why must everything be a slippery slope?

To me, it is cut and dried and actually non-political. If you are a non-citzen and have a baby on US soil, that child is not considered an American citizen.

That cuts across a whole range of issues and does not benefit any political party as far as I can tell.

Thank you, I appreciate you responding to my post. I'm slowly dipping back into the Frontline, hoping we can have some actual discussions. I am actually curious what people think, regardless of whether i agree with them or not.

I going to ban myself from using the term "lib" or anything that implies "team sport" in my responses from this point on.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Big Train
If you are a non-citzen and have a baby on US soil, that child is not considered an American citizen.

so you have to take a citizenship test before you have your kid? what if you've been in this country 5 years and have a kid? that child is automatically NOT a U.S. citizen, yet i am? seems a bit unfair.

also, it seems to me that the problem you're trying to address is illegal immigration. fine. i think better to address that by increasing border security, etc.

because, let's be honest, not TOO many people are going to stop coming across the border simply because their kids (which may or may not have already been conceived) won't be citizens.

[Big Train]

The way I envision it is that the child would become a citizen after both parents (or one if only available) became legal.

If your in the country 5 years, you aren't automatically a citizen. You've just been here 5 years and feel you are entitled to be one.

It is illegal immigration, but that also encompasses a whole range of social issues and services which drain a lot of money out of the system.

If the child is automatically a citizen, it needlessly complicates the situation, as now it is a much harder to remove the parent as it would create a "hardship" for the US Citizen, the child.

I'm actually pro-immigration reform, but that has to be a major component of it. Border security is good and necessary, but it can only go so far. I want to ensure there are no rewards for not coming correctly with visas, no matter where you are from.

The reason politicians keep "debating" the issue is that those babies grow everyday and become a big voting block. By simply waiting it out, they will win in sheer numbers. The traitors in our country who intentionally go against our own government allow to happen everyday and should be removed from office. It's a shame to see.

[studly hungwell]

Apply for citizenship, upon acceptance, have a baby.....that baby and its parents are American citizens...thats how it should be. As far as the 2nd amendment....everyone should be armed at all times. Imagine....courtesy and respect everywhere you go. And, the ability to deal with a loon any time they snap. But No!!!!!!!!!! We should rely on law enforcement! That's not realistic. Its been proven a mistake everytime its been tried.

[Seshmeister]

The thing that has always struck me reading these forums and getting a US perspective on the world is how bizarrely hung up so many people in the US are about the founding fathers and constitution.

Instinctively with a royal family going back hundreds of years and being a much older country you would expect the UK to be much more steeped in history politically but it doesn't seem to be that way.

Why the writings of slave owners over three hundred years ago should be so sacrosanct and treated like an almost holy text is a bit bizarre for non Americans.

I guess it's a glue. In a time of large immigration into Western Europe the US model for assimilating people and the whole melting pot thing is seen by a lot of people here as a better way of doing things rather than multiculturalism. I get that and kind of agree although a semi worship of an ancient text and a flag seems a bit silly to me. Maybe it's because the US is so religious too so accepting old writings as absolute is in the genes.

I sometimes think so many people burn US flags(their own flags which they have bought from China) because they know it annoys Americans.

I remember the first time I saw a British flag being burned which was in Argentina during the Falklands war. I was completely unaffected by that, not even mildly irritated, I just thought they looked a bit annoyed.

The Second Ammendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I notice that the first part is very rarely quoted. Since the US doesn't rely on a militia any more I think the whole thing is irrelevant.

To me it's just a political straightjacket.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers

[FORD]

Actually, we do have a well regulated militia in each state. It's called the National Guard. (Also literally called the "state militia" in some cases i.e. the lyrics of old Creedence Clearwater Revivial songs)

Of course, Chimpy has taken most of those "well regulated militias" and shipped them off to Iraq, which is unconstitutional in and of itself.

[Big Train]

Sesh,

That document we are hung up on is what keeps us from being you, a European. Being that our country goes nowhere near as far back in history, yea, I guess we do cling to it. It's given people far more prosperity and happiness than most countries. I don't mind being hung up on a document that important.

However, it was designed to change over time and reflect the will of the people and the times they lived in. Yet oddly, we slowly change it and yes we do cling to phrases like gospel.

Ford kicks around "unconstitutional" all the time, which is what made me start this thread. Unconstitutional is a substitute in too many conversations for "an idea I don't agree with".

My point in asking the question is are there things in the document that we cling to that don't reflect the times in which we live?

To me the statue of liberty thing of "tired, huddled masses" doesn't apply in a country of 300+ million people. Seems a bit outdated.

So does "well regulated militia". I feel that militia shouldn't be using assault rifles, but muskets to stay in tone with the theme of when it was written.

[hideyoursheep]

They should change it to read; "Give me your tired,your poor,your huddled masses, and I will provide them with Paintbrushes and Lawncare Equipment."

*Sponsored by The HomeDepot*