Frank Guinta, Blue Hampshire And The Constitution

I read an article recently on Blue Hampshire that I haven't been able to get out of my mind because it exposes the perfect example of the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

The article "Frank Guinta and the Crackpot Fringe" which is nothing more then a slim on facts hit peice makes this statement:

For folks who make such a big deal about their fealty to the U.S. Constitution, the tea party crowd sure isn't hesitant about seeking to change the parts they don't like.

Read that line a few times and really let it sink in what is being said there.

Have you read it two or three times?  Good, now consider that the left too has parts they dislike about the constitution.  The 2nd amendment comes quickly to mind.

Being as it's fair to say that both parties agree the Constitution isn't perfect (a claim Democrats have made many many times publicly), which would you rather have in power, a party that admits what they dislike about it and seeks to change it through the correct legal means of an amendment or a party that ignores the parts they dislike and puts activist judges in power who treat it as a "living document" that needs to be reinterpreted over time?

If we left everything untouched in the Constitution from the day it was put into affect we wouldn't have repealed the 18th ammendment and alcohol would still be illegal.

When you stop and really think about what they are saying here I'm not sure if it exposes their ignorance or if it just exposes how they play by a whole different set of rules.

But going back to their article, what I find even more telling is that they are so desperate to defend Carol Shea Porter that they write this attack piece against Frank Guinta which is based on hollow arguments.

First they point out that there is a group calling for the repeal of the 17th amendment, that's the amendment that allows Senators to be directly elected by the people.  If you drill into their link you see Frank never actually came out in support of the idea.  His answer was "There are pros and cons. We need to weigh this one very carefully."  That says to me that he's willing to listen to the argument even if he doesn't support it.  Is that a bad thing?  I guess if you support Carol and her willingness to have people arrested and tossed out of meetings for saying things she dislikes then you would see it as bad.

Then they point out the 14th amendment which many Republicans do feel it is time to revisit and revise, that's the amendment that grants anyone born here citizenship.

They quote the following from the Union Leader about Frank Guinta's stance:

Guinta would also take a hard line on illegal immigrants with American-born children. If the parents go, the kids are going to have to go with their parents," he said. "The responsibility of a parent at that point is to keep their family intact. If you're breaking the law and you are deported, you bring your family back to your home country.

Instead of really thinking about this and debating it they instantly turn against Frank and attack saying he's against the Constitution.

For starters the 14th amendment did not become law until 1868.  The 17th in 1913.

But in the case of immigrants let's consider this deeper.  If a couple comes here illegally they have already broken our laws, if during that time they have a child should they be rewarded for simply being here at the time of the birth?

One of a few situations could come from this given the current Constitutional clause.

1) We reward them even though they break our laws and allow them to stay here and raise their baby with full rights as a US citizen.

2) We deport them without the baby since it is now a US citizen.  This places the burden on Americans to pay for and raise the child without parents.

3) We deport them with the child.  This could become a problem if the parents do not wish to take that child back because now the child is consider a US citizen.  We cannot force a citizen out of the country even if it's parents are illegal and do not belong here.

None of the above situations are ideal which is why we should be having discussions on whether or not the 14th amendment needs to be repealed or altered.  Thinking people see and understand this.