The
State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
Akhil Reed Amar's “Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
Akhil Reed Amar's “Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario
Apuzzo's blog on June 24, 2015 at 3:52 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
<<>>
Here
is another short quote (4 minutes, followed by a 3 minute response to
a question by a 9 year old girl about the possible rewriting of the
U.S. Constitution) from Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar on a
Youtube video titled The State of the Constitution: Is the
Constitution Still Working for America?. Prof. Amar's two
comments, a total of 7 minutes on the Youtube video, is from a panel
discussion at the National Archives on Sept. 17, 2014, the
227th anniversary of the adoption on September 17, 1787 of the “We
the People” U.S. Constitution The panel explored court cases and
proposals to amend and transform the “We the People” U.S.
Constitution to include constitutional transformative new thought (my
words, not Prof. Amar's).
US National Archives
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3S1Vdeblvk )
_Doug Smith from the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution
_Robert Hurt, U.S. Representative from Virginia
_Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale Law School
_Ben Wittes from the Brookings Institution
Here's a link to more Youtube videos with Prof. Amar.
US National Archives
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3S1Vdeblvk )
_Doug Smith from the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution
_Robert Hurt, U.S. Representative from Virginia
_Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale Law School
_Ben Wittes from the Brookings Institution
Here's a link to more Youtube videos with Prof. Amar.
(
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Akhil+Reed+Amar+-+America%27s+Constitution%2C+A+Biography
)
In the previous post I wondered why Baylor University President Ken Starr and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar did not talk about the "terse" language of Article II and the Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" POTUS eligibility requirement two months before dual U.S/foreign citizenship President Obama was elected for his second term. I think I have discovered at least one possible constitutional amendment reason why Prof. Amar did not want to clarify the "terse" language of "natural born Citizen" when he had the contextual opportunity even though Baylor Pres. Starr did not ask him specifically to clarify the original genesis original intent “terse” language of “natural born Citizen” in Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 5.
The possible reason is in (1) the "prescriptive and descriptive" "three rules" for constitutional amendments that Prof. Amar proposes in this panel discussion about the state of the U.S. Constitution and how it is still working for America, and (2) in the "...regional and global systems of government" that the children of the United States will have to think about in the world government scenario he mentions in this September 17, 2014 panel discussion because "...problems and opportunities exist on a global scale."
Prof. Amar's Three Rules for amendments "...that fits our tradition":
Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality
_Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality
_Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality
Rule #2: Both Political Parties Must Agree
Rule #3: States Test Ideas First
_Direct Election of the President
_POTUS Eligibility of Foreign Born
_Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
1- Flag Burning
2- Campaign Finance Reform
3- Marriage and Tradition
4- Direct Election of the President
5- POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born
6- Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
In the previous post I wondered why Baylor University President Ken Starr and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar did not talk about the "terse" language of Article II and the Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" POTUS eligibility requirement two months before dual U.S/foreign citizenship President Obama was elected for his second term. I think I have discovered at least one possible constitutional amendment reason why Prof. Amar did not want to clarify the "terse" language of "natural born Citizen" when he had the contextual opportunity even though Baylor Pres. Starr did not ask him specifically to clarify the original genesis original intent “terse” language of “natural born Citizen” in Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 5.
The possible reason is in (1) the "prescriptive and descriptive" "three rules" for constitutional amendments that Prof. Amar proposes in this panel discussion about the state of the U.S. Constitution and how it is still working for America, and (2) in the "...regional and global systems of government" that the children of the United States will have to think about in the world government scenario he mentions in this September 17, 2014 panel discussion because "...problems and opportunities exist on a global scale."
Prof. Amar's Three Rules for amendments "...that fits our tradition":
Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality
_Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality
_Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality
Rule #2: Both Political Parties Must Agree
Rule #3: States Test Ideas First
_Direct Election of the President
_POTUS Eligibility of Foreign Born
_Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
1- Flag Burning
2- Campaign Finance Reform
3- Marriage and Tradition
4- Direct Election of the President
5- POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born
6- Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
Prof. Amar's comments, as a recognized constitutional law scholar and political scientist, are intended to be socially transformative and, as a registered Democrat as he self-identified in the panel discussion, so, as the current Democratic Party is constituted since the new neoDemocrat activists (aka Liberals, aka Progressives, aka Socialists, aka Marxists, aka whatever new “ist” may be in the "cell division" state) took it over, Prof. Amar's comments reveal, politically, socialist progressive new thought with a new meaning to “liberty and equality” that is in contrast to the original intent of the original meaning of "liberty" and "equality" that is explicit and implicit in the original words of both constitutions of the original framers, the explicit written constitution and the implicit "unwritten" constitution.
Although Professor Amar does not reference Article II and “natural born Citizen” in this panel discussion, his “liberty and equality” focus, along with his “...three rules, prescriptive and descriptive...for constitutional amendments”, indicates that the Constitution's heterosexual preamble word “posterity,” as related to the three heterosexual related POTUS eligibility requirement words “natural born Citizen,” will require that the exceptional and exclusive words "On Person except a natural born Citizen...,” as a reference to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, must be excised from Article II by removing the written words “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. The excision of “natural born Citizen” from Article II will be the necessary consequence if Prof. Amar's “liberty and equality” proposal to amend the written Constitution to include homosexuality is endorsed by all political parties and then ratified by the states because the “implicit constitution” of Prof. Amar condones the implication of including natural law homosexuality to be elevated to equal social and political status with natural law heterosexuality.
Professor Amar's 2012 book, titled America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By*, and the first chapter, titled Reading Between the Lines: America's Implicit Constitution, indicate that as a socialist progressive, Yale Law Prof. Amar can allow anything to be “implicit” in the written Constitution if it promotes the agenda to “transform the United States of America” by transforming the U.S. Constitution into a “liberty and equality” “implicit constitution” in which can be found anything, including promoting the homosexual agenda of less than 2% of the American population. See below an “implicitly” constitutional new meaning: “...no discrimination on the grounds of [homosexual] sex. I think it would be nice to have that in our federal constitution. It's [homosexual “sex” is] already there implicitly,” followed in the next sentence with “States are giving us gay marriage”.
* America's Unwritten Constitution ( http://www.americasunwrittenconstitution.com/ )
Prof. Amar's intent is to amend the U.S. Constitution with three amendments so that each “...fits our tradition” as he defines “tradition,” specifically the tradition of marriage and posterity since the 1787 “We the People” wrote the words “...to form a more perfect Union” for themselves and their “Posterity” as the Union populated. If Prof. Amar's three amendments listed below are ratified, at least one amendment will be required for the excision of the natural law words “natural born Citizen” from Article II to accommodate the inclusion by amendment of positive law homosexual marriage and the elevation by amendment of natural homosexuality, a consistent 1% to 2% of the population by recruiting through media ridicule and propaganda, to an equal status with natural law heterosexuality (neither “natural law homosexuality,” the activity, nor “natural law heterosexuality,” the activity, require a “positive law” to be actively practiced, unless positive laws are passed to force heterosexual activity by homosexuals or homosexual activity by heterosexuals).
If Prof. Amar's “liberty and equality” amendments are ratified, they will “transform” the original genesis original intent meaning of at least two of the Constitution's 1787 preamble words, “posterity” and “Union.”
My observation of the original genesis original intent of the word “posterity” in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution is, for POTUS eligibility purposes, as the Union grew from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, is that the word “posterity” of the Union in 1787 was ONLY a reference to U.S. “natural born Citizen” children with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.
For children born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen father who was not married to the mother of the child, the child was considered to be a positive law U.S. “citizen” but not a natural law “natural born Citizen” and thus not eligible to the office of President since only one parent was a U.S. citizen.
If the mother of the child was a U.S. citizen who was married to the alien father, the mother was by the common law of the 1780s identified, by marriage, to be an alien, the child was considered by the common law of that era to also be an alien and thus not eligible to the office of President. BOTH parents and the child were considered by the common law of that era to be aliens.
If the mother was a U.S. citizen mother but the paternity was not known, or was kept hidden by the mother, the child was considered to be a positive law U.S. citizen but not eligible to the office of President since only one parent was a U.S. citizen. So, when the mother was a U.S. citizn, whether the father was known to be an alien or the father was not known, the child was a "citizen" but not a "natural born Citizen" and NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar:
@ 59m47s (4.5 minutes)
“Two
hundred and twenty-seven years ago the framers created an audacious
continental democracy, the likes of which had never been seen in
world history. Democracy had existed only in tiny, little
city-states.
“What was basically being proposed was nothing less than world government for a new world, for a continent separated by vast oceanic moats from the ... old world. If we take seriously, that, if we project things forward, you have to think, our children have to think, about regional and global systems of government. Because, actually, problems and opportunities exist on a global scale, whether we're talking about pandemic viruses, or international terrorism, or nuclear proliferation, or climate change. And, thinking about these regional, intercontinental, even global systems of constitutionalism. Remember I told you, we were the only democratic project going 227 years ago. Now half the planet is democratic on an American model. So, that's what the next fifty years, that will be a serious conversation."
“What was basically being proposed was nothing less than world government for a new world, for a continent separated by vast oceanic moats from the ... old world. If we take seriously, that, if we project things forward, you have to think, our children have to think, about regional and global systems of government. Because, actually, problems and opportunities exist on a global scale, whether we're talking about pandemic viruses, or international terrorism, or nuclear proliferation, or climate change. And, thinking about these regional, intercontinental, even global systems of constitutionalism. Remember I told you, we were the only democratic project going 227 years ago. Now half the planet is democratic on an American model. So, that's what the next fifty years, that will be a serious conversation."
[Prof. Amar's Three Rules for Constitutional Amendments]
[Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality]
"Domestically,
here are the three rules, prescriptive and descriptive, that I put
forth for constitutional amendments.
“They should add to liberty and equality, not detract from them. All the amendments thus far, except for prohibition, have done that. Prohibition was not a great success."
“They should add to liberty and equality, not detract from them. All the amendments thus far, except for prohibition, have done that. Prohibition was not a great success."
[Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality]
"So,
flag burning amendments that make it a criminal thing, restricting
first amendment freedoms, not a great idea."
[Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality]
"I
don't think, actually, restricting the First Amendment in the name of
"campaign finance reforms" [his finger " " air
quote] is such a great idea either.
"So, amendments should add to liberty and equality."
"So, amendments should add to liberty and equality."
[Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality]
"One
man, one woman, marriage, that restricts liberty and equality.
I don't think that's such a great idea. I don't think, actually, that
fits our tradition. Amendments should add to liberty and equality,
not take away. That's what we've done thus far."
[Rule #2: Both Political Parties Must Agree]
“Amendments
are going to have to be supported by both parties, because you can't
get two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-fourths
of the States unless both parties are on board."
[Rule #3: States Test Ideas First]
“States
are going to have to road test all these ideas first. Every single
thing in the Constitution, virtually, states did first."
"States
had written constitutions first.
"Massachusetts put the Constitution to a vote first.
"States had three branches of government.
"States had bicameral legislatures; single member districts.
"States had bills of rights.
"States got rid of slavery first.
"States let women vote first.
"States let blacks vote first.
"So, states are going to road test these ideas. It's a Brandeisian model. What would pass these descriptive and prescriptive tests?"
"Massachusetts put the Constitution to a vote first.
"States had three branches of government.
"States had bicameral legislatures; single member districts.
"States had bills of rights.
"States got rid of slavery first.
"States let women vote first.
"States let blacks vote first.
"So, states are going to road test these ideas. It's a Brandeisian model. What would pass these descriptive and prescriptive tests?"
[Direct Election of the President]
"Well,
we could imagine direct election of the presidency, 'cause that's
actually an equality idea. All the states have little
mini-presidents; we call them governors. In none of the states do we
have a little electoral college; it's one person, one vote. I could
imagine both parties supporting this because, actually, the
Republicans will increasingly come to understand that the Electoral
College disfavors them going forward, and the Democrats like one
person, one vote. They like the equality idea. So, that could happen.
[POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born]
"People
who were not born under the flag can be governors in the states;
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Granholm. I could imagine Republicans
getting on board with their version of the Dream Act, 'cause you come
here, we want a fence, we want a big fence, we want an electrified
fence. Did we say we want a big fence? Ok, fine, but, now what else
do you have to offer? They're going to say, you come here and you
play by the rules; you come here legally, you contribute for thirty
years, you should be eligible to be president. Orin Hatch proposed
that ten years ago. He still believes in it, I think, he just cant
say it yet, but eventually he will be able to say it because it will
be in the Republican Party's interest to have an alternative for
that.
[Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution]
“States
have formal ERA's, no discrimination on the grounds of sex. I think
it would be nice to have that in our federal constitution. It's
already there implicitly, but, let's say it again, this time with
feeling. States are giving us gay marriage, and sometimes in state
constitutions, and I could imagine, actually, that being something,
because both parties eventually are going to find it in their
interests to do it. It adds to liberty and equality.
“States are doing these things.
"These are the three principles, and those are both descriptive and prescriptive principles."
“States are doing these things.
"These are the three principles, and those are both descriptive and prescriptive principles."
The
first audience question was from Ellie, a nine year old girl.
@ 1h4m25s (3 minutes)
@ 1h4m25s (3 minutes)
Ellie:
"I'm
Ellie Pugh, and, do you think that the Constitution will ever be
completely rewritten, and how far in the future do you think it will
happen?
Prof. Amar:
Prof. Amar:
"Can I say something to Ellie? I met you, Ellie,
at the reception, and you told me you're nine and a half years old?
Is that right? I think I came, for the very first time, before
adulthood, to this building when I was nine and a half years old, and
it changed my life; in this building, the National Archives.
"Ellie, you should, have your parents give you a dollar bill. They should, I've met them. On the back, you see, there's this pyramid, and it's unfinished. I think that America's constitutional project will keep going. When it says it's a more perfect union, but I don't think we'll ever get there, we're always building. I don't know if we're going to rewrite the whole thing. It's interesting, we've added amendments to the end. James Madison called it a careless written letter; so many postscripts, post posts, pps's. They didn't rewrite the thing. Most state constitutions, actually, when there's a new amendment, they kind of word process the thing. They rewrite the main text, but here, we just say, oh, another thing, and another thing, and we just kind of add them. So, I'm not sure we're going to rewrite it. We haven't done that since Philadelphia 227 years ago, but we're going to add a bunch of amendments and the pyramid will keep growing and growing and growing, but I don't think we'll ever get there. I don't think we'll ever be perfect, but, I do think that your generation is going to have a lot to say. You have to figure out what you want to put on top, you know, as the next layer of that pyramid.
"Do you know, can you tell us what the preamble to the Constitution says?"
Ellie:
"Ellie, you should, have your parents give you a dollar bill. They should, I've met them. On the back, you see, there's this pyramid, and it's unfinished. I think that America's constitutional project will keep going. When it says it's a more perfect union, but I don't think we'll ever get there, we're always building. I don't know if we're going to rewrite the whole thing. It's interesting, we've added amendments to the end. James Madison called it a careless written letter; so many postscripts, post posts, pps's. They didn't rewrite the thing. Most state constitutions, actually, when there's a new amendment, they kind of word process the thing. They rewrite the main text, but here, we just say, oh, another thing, and another thing, and we just kind of add them. So, I'm not sure we're going to rewrite it. We haven't done that since Philadelphia 227 years ago, but we're going to add a bunch of amendments and the pyramid will keep growing and growing and growing, but I don't think we'll ever get there. I don't think we'll ever be perfect, but, I do think that your generation is going to have a lot to say. You have to figure out what you want to put on top, you know, as the next layer of that pyramid.
"Do you know, can you tell us what the preamble to the Constitution says?"
Ellie:
"It
says, we the people of the United States of America, um."
Prof. Amar:
"That's a very good start. That's like half of the Constitution, right there [much applause]. We the people of the United States, dot dot dot, we do ordain and establish the Constitution, and that's what began 227 years ago, but here's one little piece of it that was written, actually, just for you. It's to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They were thinking about later generations. They thought about you, and you have obligations to them to try to make the Constitution even better for your children still unborn, and that's actually the challenge of your generation.
"That's what I believe."
Prof. Amar:
"That's a very good start. That's like half of the Constitution, right there [much applause]. We the people of the United States, dot dot dot, we do ordain and establish the Constitution, and that's what began 227 years ago, but here's one little piece of it that was written, actually, just for you. It's to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They were thinking about later generations. They thought about you, and you have obligations to them to try to make the Constitution even better for your children still unborn, and that's actually the challenge of your generation.
"That's what I believe."
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument26.blogspot.com/ )
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument26.blogspot.com/ )
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art,
As to the natural born citizens, the American Revolution created the original citizens out of those persons born before July 4, 1776. Adults become citizens through consent to the revolution and their minor children followed their choice, being free to make a different choice upon reaching the age of majority. Those who were born after July 4, 1776 in the United States to original citizen parents were like their parents citizens and also the original natural born citizens. All their descendants born in the United States thereafter were also like their parents citizens and also natural born citizens.
More citizens were added to the original citizen line through naturalization under Acts of Congress or treaties. Any naturalized citizen could join another citizen, whether from the original citizen line or from a line created through subsequent naturalization, to make more citizens. Children born to them in the United States became citizens like them and also natural born citizens.
As to the citizens, again, there were the original citizens, who were so made after their birth either through the revolution or through a naturalization act of a state and later of Congress. There were also citizens so made at birth. These were so made by naturalization Acts of Congress and later the Fourteenth Amendment. They were recognized by those laws as citizens at birth. They were not natural born citizens because they were either born in the United States to one or two alien parents (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment), or born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (born citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress). Finally, there were also citizens so made after their birth. These persons were born out of the United States to two alien parents and who naturalized as citizens after birth under an Act of Congress or treaty.
So, that is it. We can see who are the natural born citizens (born in the United States to citizen parents), the born citizens (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress), and the citizens after birth (citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty). They are all citizens. But only those children born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are not only citizens, but also natural born citizens.
As to the natural born citizens, the American Revolution created the original citizens out of those persons born before July 4, 1776. Adults become citizens through consent to the revolution and their minor children followed their choice, being free to make a different choice upon reaching the age of majority. Those who were born after July 4, 1776 in the United States to original citizen parents were like their parents citizens and also the original natural born citizens. All their descendants born in the United States thereafter were also like their parents citizens and also natural born citizens.
More citizens were added to the original citizen line through naturalization under Acts of Congress or treaties. Any naturalized citizen could join another citizen, whether from the original citizen line or from a line created through subsequent naturalization, to make more citizens. Children born to them in the United States became citizens like them and also natural born citizens.
As to the citizens, again, there were the original citizens, who were so made after their birth either through the revolution or through a naturalization act of a state and later of Congress. There were also citizens so made at birth. These were so made by naturalization Acts of Congress and later the Fourteenth Amendment. They were recognized by those laws as citizens at birth. They were not natural born citizens because they were either born in the United States to one or two alien parents (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment), or born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (born citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress). Finally, there were also citizens so made after their birth. These persons were born out of the United States to two alien parents and who naturalized as citizens after birth under an Act of Congress or treaty.
So, that is it. We can see who are the natural born citizens (born in the United States to citizen parents), the born citizens (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress), and the citizens after birth (citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty). They are all citizens. But only those children born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are not only citizens, but also natural born citizens.
June
24, 2015 at 8:39 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment