Dr. Laura & Sarah Palin ~ Sisterhood of the First Amendment Nonesense

The Constitution seems to be a major issue in politics these last few weeks.
It seeks that Conservatives all over the political spectrum want to have their cake and eat it too.

You have the 14th Amendment Issue where Conservatives want to strip your Constitutional Right to Birthright Citizenship.

You have Cordoba House AKA Ground Zero "Mosque." Despite this being nothing more than a local zoning issue, it's turning into a daily Republican talking point, but instead of citing your First Amendment Right to freedom of religion, GOP opposition to Cordoba House is becoming their platform to the November Midterm Elections.

Most recently we have Dr. Laura. You know, my disdain or Dr. Laura goes back more than a decade and I won't spend much time going over why she is Dr. Hate.
Her recent debacle surrounds her her use of the "N" word 11 times on a recent episode of her radio show.
Granted, Dr. Laura wasn't inciting hate for once, necessarily. Dr. Laura is simply guilty of insensitivity to the use of the "N" word and bad taste.
This is very shades of the Don Imus"nappy headed hoes" comment a few years ago.

The point of this post of mine isn't about what bad judgment Dr. Laura used on her show, otherwise I'd be typing all night long. The point is how Dr. Laura keeps insinuating that her First Amendment Rights have been obstructed. She's even ending her show so she can "get her First Amendment Rights back."
What's more is, she's got company, albeit - not the best kind. Half-term Governor Sarah Palin is coming to the rescue, tweeting similar gibberish around how the "lamestream media" has trampled Dr. Laura's First Amendment Rights.

I'd just like to ask these ladies, just how Dr. Laura's rights were somehow violated or obstructed? Dr. Laura said the "N" word 11 times on her show. The show aired. Million of people listened. No Government agency is going after Dr. Laura trying to haul her off to jail or slap her with a huge fine. Her show hasn't been sanctioned by any Government. She had the freedom to say it, and still has the freedom to say it again.
There is no protection in the First Amendment that somehow exempts you from the court of public opinion. Just as Dr. Laura is free to, and still is free to use the "N" word in public or in private, we the people are free to denounce such hate speech and expose it. We the people are free to pressure advertisers to stop bankrolling her show and encourage people to denounce her.
Surely someone like Sarah Palin should understand that, as she aspires to be President one day. Her first duty to the country as President is to defend the Constitution, not to defend disgraced public people from tanking popularity.

You know, Sarah wants President Obama to denounce the planning of the New York Mosque but yet she has yet to denounce Dr. Laura's use of such an offensive word, which just goes to show you the xenophobic attitude of Sarah and her Tea Party.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks that as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia then there shouldn't be a place for Muslims to worship in Manhattan. Hmmm......so is he saying that we should strive to be more like Saudi Arabia???

Bottom line.....you can't cry about the first amendment not protecting you from public opinion, and you can't deny Muslims their First Amendment Right to a place to worship.

New York "Mosque"

Much is being discussed around the "politics" of the New York Mosque. I find a lot of the rhetoric disgusting and totally UN-American.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is directly from the First Amendment of the United States. A quote I heard a few days ago that I found extremely appropriate was, "The entire point of the United States is so that a group of Progressive Muslim es can build a place of worship anywhere they feel like."

One of the most important things to remember is that the institution of Islam did not attack us on September 11. A group of radicals from Saudi Arabia did. Just like the institution of Christianity did not bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion doctors. Radical religious nut cases did. So under the right winger logic, should we also ban building churches next to abortion clinics? We can't be blaming entire groups of people for the actions of their fringe groups.
We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with al-Quaida. Of course, if al-Queida wanted to build a recruiting center next to Ground Zero, legally this could never happen and of course the New York Planning Community would never approve something so ridiculous.

When we stop being American, stop celebrating the very fabric of what makes America, America - then indeed the terrorists do win. Building this center at Ground Zero demonstrates to the world how great this country is, that we are better than hate. We live in a country where we celebrate diversity and religious tolerance. The Terrorists wanted this war between the religions. Continuing this xenophobic rhetoric and politics is exactly what they wanted.

Let's also put this into perspective. The New York "Mosque" isn't even a "Mosque." It is an Islamic Community Center, being planned by a group of Progressive Muslims who want to build a bridge and reject Extremism.

The Islamic Center, which is called Cordoba House, was unanimously approved by the New York Planning Committe and is supported by Mayor Bloomgerg.
The Right Wingers claim to be about small government and free market principles. If they truely believe in this, then they should simply but out of this altogether and let the "private sector" self-regulate. If people truely don't support Cordoba House, then it will eventually close down. This is not a national issue. This should not be used as a political spin for Midterm Elections.

Cordoba House isn't even at Ground Zero. It is several blocks away - and anyone that knows NYC knows that a NYC block is pretty big. So then this also brings up another question entirely. How close is too close? If Cordoba House is just "to close" then what exactly would be an appropriate distance for Muslims to worship at?
There is another actual Mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero that has existed peaceully for years - shall we close that one down too?

The Tea Party needs to figure out their message. They don't believe in the Civil Rights Act of '64. They believe that the "Free Market" should decide whether or not it's appropriate for a Restaurant owner to decide if they want to serve black people or not, but at the same time, they don't believe in the Free Market deciding whether or not Muslims should enjoy their First Amendment privelages of Freedom of Religion.

Lastly, and most importantly, this is an issue for New York City, so how bout we all shut up about this already and let the people of New York decide for themselves whether or not this land dispute should go through. Oh wait, they already did.

Get your Government hands off of my Constitution!

So it seems that this notion of repealing the 14th Amendment from the United States Constitution is simply not going away anytime soon. Just a few weeks ago, this whole idea was coming from the obcure fringe ultra right wingnuts. I thought that this idea was so ridiculous I discounted it at first. Now we are hearing from this almost daily on the news, in the blogosphere and at town halls across the country.

Even more troubling, is that according to a recent poll, 49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship which is the cornerstone of the 14th Amendment.

I don't think people realize the ramifications of what that could mean to the nation if such a plot were ever to come to fruition. I don't think people understand that when the Republican Party of the 19th century first enacted the 14th Amendment, it was considered vital for equality, and it is the mechanism that allows the Federal Government to enforce the Bill of Rights.
As I stated in my previous post, the framers of the 14th Amendment were wise to incorporate Birthright citizenship into the constitution. It was and still imperative that all people born in this country enjoy the life,liberty and pursuit of hapiness guarenteed under the constitution regardless of any type of discrimination of lack of political popularity. Sometimes things in our Constitution are not politically popular - like Miranda Rights, Freedom of Religion (in the New York mosque incident.) and now Birthright Citizenship. However, politically popular or not, they are still right and just and have navigated our country for decades. That is part of our "American Exceptionalism" that the right always accuses the left of not believing in. And it's even more interesting that it is the "right" that always claims to be strict constitutionalists, but in this political environment, they seem to be going after Amendment after Amendent they wish to repeal.

I know that the arguement right now isn't over black people with regards to the 14th Amendment discussion. But this was the Amendments main intent and it has implications that could affect all of us. It was important and still is important that politicts and popular opinion are kept out of citizenship issues. Just 10 years before the 14th Amendment was enacted, it was declared that black people could never be citizens. And that was socially and politically popular then and maybe one day for another group of minorities. Granting automatic citizenship at birth keeps the politics out of the equation. This is smart policy.

What would happen, if Birthright Citizenship was no longer your Birthright?
We don't know what the political landscape will look like in the future. And without Birthright Citizenship, who will decide who is a citizen and who is not?
What beaurocracy or litmus test might be required to become a citizen?
What happens if we stop granting citizenship to people simply because they are Muslim, or have Middle-Eastern heritage? What would happen if children of gay parents were no longer citizens? Don't think that's possible? Well who knows, like I said we don't know what popular opinion will look like in the future and this is why we have a Constitution, to ensure that America stays America.

And how retroactive would this new policy be? Eventually almost all of us have immigration in the family. What if your Grandmother was never naturalized? All of a sudden you citizenship is revoked. Can you imagine? Your family has been here for a century and you've lived your entire life as an American until boom - your 40 and livingg in the country ileagally.

How, "to the letter" would we follow this vague policy? What happens if the mother was legal and father was not legal? You really going to snatch a kid from a mother and ship it off to Mexico? This is madness!

Furthermore, children of "ilegals" can't even begin helping their parents become citizens until they're 21 and even at that point it would still take a few years.

How bout we leave the children out of this one? Why don't we go after the EMPLOYERS. That is why they're here after all. Why not come up with a National ID Card, mandate e-Verify or some other type of mechanism toward ilegal employment?

I think that the last thing that this country needs to do is just create more ilegals in this country, which is precisly what would happen if Birthright Citizenship were enacted. Consider this; a study just released is that 8% of all babies born in the US have undocumented parents. That's an added 300,000 ilegal citizens every year, including the 5 million childredn here already that were born by undocumented parents. We already have an ilegal immigration problem, adding millions more to our broken system isn't going to help anybody.
Leave the kids out of it.

The 14th Amendment has served this country well for over a century and stripping it down is simply not the answer to ilegal immigration in any sense of the word. This would do far much more harm than good.

Majority Tyranny , Equal Protection & taking on the "Fanatic Fifth."

When the California Supreme Court originally decided that a ban on Same Sex Marriage was unconstitutional, I was of course overjoyed. But something about the ruling today in San Francisco is even sweeter. I guess it's true when they say you don't really appreciate something until it's taken away from you. Enjoying equality for those few months in '08 was great. But then feeling the sting of Prop 8 for the last two years, the setbacks, the rallies, the lobbying, and now once again feeling somewhat less of a second class citizen than I did yesterday.

What's even more incredible, this time around it wasn't a California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it was a Federal judge ruling on the Federal Constitution. The lawyers arguing against Prop 8 - two high profile attorneys who once argued in the Federal Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) - one, a liberal democrat, and one a conservative republican, decided to take this case on together. Decided to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States because they knew that this was a matter of Civil Rights. In their own words today, "it's time to stop thinking about equality as a liberal or conservative matter." While the fight is far from over, today was a good day for gays and lesbians and a good day for the country.

We should be proud to live in a country that fights for the right of minorities. We should be proud to live in a country that fights against Majority Tyranny. 51% of the country shouldn't have the right to decide the equal or civil rights of 49% of the country. This is a philosophy that Republicans used to stand for. Well, in the case of the Filibuster, I guess that they still do.

All major pieces of legislation or court case rulings protecting minorities have been at the time, not favorable in the majority public opinion. Certainly freeing the slaves wasn't exactly popular at the time it was done, woman's rights, voter rights, housing rights, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. These protected classes never would have won their liberties at the ballot box and gays and lesbians certainly shouldn't have to either.

It's very interesting that at the same time that this ruling happened, we are also starting to see major conversation within political parties about the 14th Amendment.
Why am i writing about this in a Gay Marriage post? I think that the judges ruling today once again solidifies the importance of a system that protects minority rights from public opinion and it is a good day for our country, not just gays and lesbians.

The Right Wing is talking seriously about taking down the 14th Amendment in an effort to combat illegal immigration. Of course they could just go after employers - after all, that's what is bringing them here - but no. They have something far more sinister planned.

You see, the 14th Amendment is among other things, the entire basis for a "birthright citizenship." Meaning, if you are born in the United States, you are an American Citizen, who enjoys all the rights and civil liberties that are part of that.

The framers of the 14th Amendment were wise in incorporating the Birthright Citizenship language in the Constitution. It was only 10 years earlier in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that stated blacks could not be American Citizens. This was a very popular, common held belief in the country during this time. Even though it was popular opinion, it was still wrong. Just like a ban on gay marriage is wrong.
They knew that public opinion and majority political parties change from time to time and no one should have to pander to a majority opinion as to whether or not they should be citizens in this country. It's Due Process clause was the mechanism that made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States and it's Equal Protection clause was the basis for most of Brown v. Board of Education.
The 14th Amendment is paramount to this country and our civil rights. The Right Wingers - seemingly always on the wrong side of social progress and equal rights want to take down the Amendment and it's madness.
Even Lou freaking Dobbs is way opposed to this nonsense. Lou Dobbs has basically been the leader of the Illegal Immigration Discussion in America for decades. And he has spoken out against this Tea Bag craziness. Right Wingers used to be Constitutionalists and now they are being held hostage by their fringe group.

We seem to be living in very exciting times in some regards; the election of the first African American President, the first Female Speaker of the House, a National Healthcare System and on the cusp of ending DODT. And then we have the "Fanatic Fifth." The some 20% of this country who would if they could - model the United States after the Republic of Iran, but instead of a State Religion of Islam, it'd be Christian Tyranny.

The point of this rather erratic post lacking much of a cohesive message is basically, Minority Rights must be protected and not put up for a vote against the current majority party or majority opinion. That is what is so great about this country. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," for ALL Americans.