Monday, May 3, 2010

Duncan D. Hunter: You Embarrass Me

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) responded "yes" when asked at a Tea Party rally whether he would support deporting the natural-born children of illegal immigrants. I wasn't going to waste my time with this one, because Republicans say stupid shit all the time, but I couldn't let this clown get away scott-free.

You see, during the early years of my life, I lived in San Diego, California in the 45/52 Congressional District. At the time, Duncan L. Hunter represented the district. Currently, his son, Duncan D. Hunter, holds this seat. Even though my memories of San Diego are limited, the majority of my extended family lives in CA 52 and have to listen to this P.O.S. all the time.

I'll keep it brief. READ THE CONSTITUTION, you clown!

This is too easy. Observe:
1. 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.
This, my dear Lefties, is the first section of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It is based upon a principle of birthright citizenship called jus soli. If you are born within the physical borders of the United States, you are an American citizen. End of story.

It is one of the critical principles of citizenship in nations around the globe, complimenting or in place of jus sanguinis, right of blood, which allows people like John McCain, who were born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents, to claim native citizenship and likewise, run for President. Funny how the birthers had their aims at the wrong guy.

Rep. Hunter's hatespew is a reflection of one of my biggest political pet peeves. People don't read the Constitution. When they do, they think of the Bill of Rights, which, I might point out, are AMENDMENTS to the Constitution.

Just try this:

Go out and ask your family and friends "what's the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of the Constitution?" I bet you they'll say "Freedom of Speech" or "Right to Bear Arms" or "Bill of Rights" or something along those lines.

As much as we might need the Bill of Rights (some disagree), they are amendments to the Constitution, and are not the most important part. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that the 14th Amendment is probably more important than any of the first 10 amendments.

That's beside the point. The Preamble is what lays down the definitive Constitutional democracy. Article 1 is what defines us as a modern republic. Article 2 gives us the Executive Branch and all its powers and limitations. Article 3 gives us a judiciary and its wonderful balancing powers. Articles 4-6 make important declarations about the relationship between federal and state governments, the process of amending the Constitution, and making the Constitution the supreme law of the land. All of these are more important than the Bill of Rights. 

The Bill of Rights could theoretically apply to a non-representative government, or one that has no balance of powers, or one that is completely flawed and senseless. The original elements of the Constitution are what make it such a rich political document and such a profound historical document.

So, go, ask your family and friends. Test their Constitutional savvy and prove me wrong.


Thomas Wachtel said...

What an ass. Considering Dan Burton is my home congressman, I feel your pain.

Though I'll say this: I understand and agree with your main point on the Constitution, but I do love me some First Amendment.

Anonymous said...

What does the Duncan Hunter thing have to do with the Constitution-is-better-than-the-Bill-of-Rights thing?

Anonymous said...

P.S. How do we know Hunter doesn't want to amend the constitution?

Bill said...

"What does the Duncan Hunter thing have to do with the Constitution-is-better-than-the-Bill-of-Rights thing?"

It reminded Henry of a pet peeve of his. The "Constitution-is-better-than-the-Bill-of-Rights thing" was an interesting tangential argument.

"P.S. How do we know Hunter doesn't want to amend the constitution?"

We don't, really. But he had ample time to suggest such a thing in his answer to the question, and he neglected to do so. One could presume from this that he was unaware that this violates the Constitution, or that he dislikes the 14th Amendment so much that he chose to ignore it. No one knows for sure, so it's fun to guess.

I'd also like to add that he is cosponsoring a bill that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States.

If he wanted to amend the Constitution, shouldn't he be working on an amendment right now instead of pushing unconstitutional legislation?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I was a little puzzled by that as well.