151 search results for ""14th amendment""

Coulter loves her some Donald

by digby

She loves him oh so much. He’s making her relevant again by immigrant bashing — the subject of her latest book “Adios America — and she’s reveling in it.

Appearing Tuesday on The Mike Gallagher Show, Coulter admitted that she has “turned against” Fiorina “as of yesterday,” and now feels the “hot, hot hate of a thousand suns” for the sole female GOP candidate.

“At first, I admit I was suspicious because I hate this, ‘Oh, a woman can talk, oh, that’s great!’” the conservative commentator said. “But I just hate this affirmative action among Republicans.”

She’s mad at Fiorina for saying she thinks Trump’s endorsement of ending birthright citizenship is outlandish.

But plenty of Republicans, notably Scott Walker, are on board with this — Trump’s not that far out on the edge.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich said recently that he didn’t think the party needed to go that far in trying to crack down on illegal immigration. But during his run for governor in 2010, according to the Columbus Dispatch, he reiterated his longtime support for ending birthright citizenship.

When Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul first ran for the Senate in 2010, he said he didn’t “think the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens.” He has since pushed for a constitutional amendment. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has said the issue needs to be re-examined as well.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has also stated his support for altering the 14th Amendment. In a column this May debuting his immigration policy, the 2012 Republican primary runner-up wrote the following:

Other enticements to illegal immigration, such as birthright citizenship, should be ended. Only children born on American soil where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a U.S. citizen. Of developed countries other than the United States, only Canada has birthright citizenship.

And on Monday night, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal joined the debate, tweeting, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

Even South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a longtime supporter of immigration reform, has called for a consideration of a change in the Constitution because he believes immigrants will simply “drop and leave” their kids in this country.

Rubio and Bush are on the other side. So there’s that.

The nativist guru in the US Senate

by digby

I wrote about Trump’s immigration plan and the man who inspired both him and Walker to take it to the next level at Salon this morning. An excerpt:

“I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen.”

Read on. There’s lots more about out history of deportation of Mexicans and Jeff Sessions’ obsession with reversing the 14th amendment. He’s quite the piece of work.

Tomorrow belongs to …Rand?

by digby

Rand Paul wrote an op-ed about how he is leading the “The Party of Tomorrow”. Seriously. I wrote about it at Salon today.

An excerpt:

Paul devoted almost none of his speech Wednesday at the historically black college in Washington, D.C., to explaining the GOP’s thorny relationship with black voters over the last fifty years, and most of it arguing that “the Republican Party has always been the party of civil rights and voting rights.” His history lecture focused almost entirely on the period before 1964, when the GOP began to champion the states rights arguments of southern whites. Echoing a popular conservative talking point, Paul repeatedly reminded the audience that Democrats passed Jim Crow laws in the south and that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as were the first black legislators and the founders of the NAACP.

“Would everyone know here they were all Republicans?” he said at one point, referring to the NAACP’s founders.

“Yes!” came the booming response from nearly the entire audience, who appeared offended Paul would even raise the question.

“I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior.”

“Don’t always look to Washington to solve anything. In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage, there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage.”

“We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying, ‘reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform.’”

Rand has said a lot of things about abortion over the years, much of it incoherent and abstract. He says one day  that the states should decide and at other times waxed philosophical about when life begins. But you don’t need to know anything more than this to know just how extreme he really is on this issue: He has sponsored the “Life at Conception Act” (also known as “fetal personhood”) which defines a fertilized egg as a person and would implement equal protections under the 14th Amendment for the “right to life of each born and pre-born human person.” The implications of this for women’s autonomy and agency are overwhelming.

There’s lots more at the link. If there’s a bigger flim-flam artist in the GOP, I can’t think of one. And that’s really saying something.

Having “a Republican argument”
by Tom Sullivan

It could be weeks before U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder rules on whether North Carolina’s House Bill 589 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The NAACP and the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit alleging that the law discriminated against racial minorities, the elderly and young people. In addition to requiring photo IDs for voting, H.B. 589 eliminated same-day voter registration, out-of-precinct provisional voting, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and reduced early voting from 17 to 10 days. (In advance of the trial, state legislators loosened the ID requirements.)

At Plum Line, Greg Sargent spoke with Chris Brook, one of the ACLU attorneys on the case, about “the mother of all voter suppression bills”:

PLUM LINE: What is the case against the North Carolina law?

BROOK: It makes it more difficult for all North Carolinians to vote, but in particular for racial minorities in our state. Beyond that, the legislature knew full well, when they passed this raft of voting restrictions, that it would make it more difficult for African Americans to vote. Yet they plowed forward despite that fact. We’re challenging these measures pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

PLUM LINE: The judge in this case is trying to determine whether the impact of the law is discriminatory or merely inconveniencing. It seems like proving discrimination is a high bar.

BROOK: There’s grounds for optimism, because over the course of the trial, we were able to put on a strong case featuring dozens of North Carolinians who were disenfranchised in 2014. These restrictions are not mere inconveniences. They resulted in many North Carolinians not being able to vote.

More than 1,000 North Carolinians cast out-of-precinct provisional ballots in 2014 that previously would have been counted and were not counted. Approximately 11,000 North Carolinians registered to vote during the same-day registration window in 2014. They were not able to participate. This is something that has kept North Carolinians from voting.

In a narrow ruling this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found Texas’ SB 14 voter ID requirement violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in that it “produces a discriminatory result that is actionable because [it] . . . interact[s] with social and historical conditions in Texas to cause an inequality in the electoral opportunities enjoyed by African-Americans and Hispanic voters.” North Carolina’s H.B. 589 court could face a similar ruling.

The Fifth Circuit did not affirm that the law was passed with discriminatory purpose or that it constitutes a poll tax. Discriminatory purpose is tougher to prove, even if it’s obvious.

Election Law Blog’s Rick Hasen:

Particularly interesting in this analysis is the question whether Texas’s explanations for why it needed its law (antifraud, voter confidence) were tenuous. The trial court found that they were because the evidence did not support the need for voter id for either of these purposes, and this factor worked in favor of finding of a Section 2 violation.

In upholding the Section 2 claim, the court observed:

While increasing voter turnout and safeguarding voter confidence are legitimate state interests, see Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008), the district court found that “the stated policies behind SB 14 are only tenuously related to its provisions,” Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 698. While in-person voting fraud is rare and mail-in fraud is comparatively much more common, SB 14’s voter ID restrictions would only combat the former. Id. at 639–41, 653.

[…]

The district court also found “no credible evidence” to support assertions that voter turnout was low due to a lack of confidence in elections, that SB 14 would increase public confidence in elections, or that increased confidence would boost voter turnout. Id. at 655. Two State Senators and the Director of the Elections Division at the Texas Secretary of State’s office all were unaware of anyone abstaining from voting out of concern for voter fraud, and the Director testified that implementing the provisional ballot process might undermine voter confidence. Id. The district court also credited testimony that SB 14 would decrease voter turnout. Id. at 655–56. According to a well established formula employed by political scientists to assess individuals’ likelihood of voting in an election, increasing the cost of voting decreases voter turnout—particularly among low-income individuals, as they are most cost sensitive. Id. at 656. Further, the district court dismissed the argument that increased turnout during the 2008 presidential election was demonstrative of increased voter confidence in two states that had recently passed voter ID laws. Id. at 655. Instead, it found that the increased turnout, nationwide, was due to President Obama’s candidacy. Id. Finally, the court also found that public opinion polls—which found high levels of support for photo ID requirements—were not demonstrative that SB 14 itself would promote voter confidence. Id. at 656. The district court discounted the polls because they did not evaluate whether voters supported SB 14 when weighed against its attendant effect on minority voters. Id.

The same “confidence” assertion the district court in Texas rejected is one prime rationale behind most of these laws nationwide, as well as in North Carolina. In July closing arguments in North Carolina, the Winston-Salem Journal reported:

Schroeder asked Farr [one of the state’s attorneys] what the justification was in making the election law changes. State Republican legislators said publicly they wanted to restore public confidence in the election system and stamp out potential voter fraud.

There is no evidence of widespread in-person voter fraud in North Carolina or nationally. An expert for the plaintiffs testified that North Carolina had only two verified cases of voter fraud out of 35 million votes cast in primary and presidential elections between 2000 and 2014.

My wife calls this having “a Republican argument.” That is to say, a disingenuous one. It’s where your opponent abandons rules of evidence and logic and instead argues by assertion or by exaggerated fear of what “might be” happening undetected.

It is to argue, for example, that eliminating public assistance to the rich through tax cuts, credits, and direct incentives (that fund their fifth home, new yacht, or airplane upgrade) will kill their incentive to work hard and “create jobs.” But public assistance to the poor — you know, for food — eliminates their incentive to work.

It is to argue after every mass shooting that we need no new gun laws criminals will simply ignore; we just need to enforce laws already on the books. Except when it comes to voting restrictions, we need new laws on top of those they complain the state is already not enforcing.

It is people arguing that we need to restore public confidence in the election system after they’ve spent decades trying to undermine it to build public support for restoring Jim Crow.

Next up: competency tests.

50 years later, it’s always something
by Tom Sullivan

President Obama will speak in Selma, AL today to observe the 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday voting rights march that began at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It will be streaming live here at noon EST (9 a.m. PST).

Even as civil rights groups gather at the bridge, a Change.org petition started by Student Unite has gathered 150,000 signatures from people who want the name Edmund Pettus removed from the Edmund Pettus Bridge, now a national landmark and part of the Selma To Montgomery National Historic Trail. It dawned on somebody that the name of a Civil War general and Alabama U.S. senator/Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon is “a symbol of oppression.” Really.

This is happening in Montgomery:

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday passed a bill that would prevent clergy, officials and faith-based groups with religious objections to certain marriages from being forced to officiate them, or being sued over their refusal.

Although the legislation does not directly address the issue, same-sex marriage supporters said the bill would effectively give state officials and religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals, homeless shelters and food banks broad powers to deny services and benefits to same-sex couples.

This is also happening:

The ACLU of Alabama; the Southern Poverty Law Center; the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade to add all Alabama couples seeking same-sex marriage licenses as plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit in Mobile County, and to add all of the state’s probate judges who may enforce orders barring or resist rulings allowing same-sex marriage as defendants.

The groups also want Granade to issue an injunction that the probate judges “refrain from enforcing all Alabama laws and orders that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying or that deny recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples.”

[snip]

On Tuesday, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered probate judges to stop issuing the licenses, saying its powers to interpret the U.S. Constitution were equal to Granade’s. The seven-justice majority said that the bans did not violate the 14th Amendment, arguing that the laws did not target gay and lesbian couples and that the state had a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage.

And you thought it was some kind of article of faith that “government shouldn’t pick winners and losers.”

It’s always something.

What if the hostage is already dying?

by digby

Felix Salmon gives us the bad news: “the default has already begun:”

The global faith in US institutions has already been undermined. The mechanism by which catastrophe would arise has already been set into motion. And as a result, economic growth in both the US and the rest of the world will be lower than it should be. Unemployment will be higher. Social unrest will be more destructive. These things aren’t as bad now as they would be if we actually got to a point of payment default. …

While debt default is undoubtedly the worst of all possible worlds, then, the bonkers level of Washington dysfunction on display right now is nearly as bad. Every day that goes past is a day where trust and faith in the US government is evaporating — and once it has evaporated, it will never return. The Republicans in the House have already managed to inflict significant, lasting damage to the US and the global economy — even if they were to pass a completely clean bill tomorrow morning, which they won’t. The default has already started, and is already causing real harm. The only question is how much worse it’s going to get.

Krugman also surveys the carnage:

Macroeconomic Advisers has a new report out about the effects of bad fiscal policy since 2010 — that is, since the GOP takeover of the House. The way it’s written, however, might confuse some people. They say that combined effects of uncertainty in the bond market and cuts in discretionary spending have subtracted 1% from GDP growth. That’s not 1% off GDP — it’s the annualized rate of growth, so that we’re talking about almost 3% of GDP at this point; cumulatively, the losses come to around $700 billion of wasted economic potential. This is in the same ballpark as my own estimates.

And they also estimate that the current unemployment rate is 1.4 points higher than it would have been without those policies (a number consistent with almost 3% lower GDP); so, we’d have unemployment below 6% if not for these people.

Andrew Sullivan is (appropriately, I think) upset about this:

…I come back to the analogy of a cold civil war. The reluctance of the South to pay the debts of the nation which led to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the national debt. It seems to me that if the House GOP really does intend to destroy the American and global economy, to throw millions out of work, to make our debt problem far worse in a new depression … just to make a point about Obamacare, then at some point, Obama, like Lincoln, must preserve the republic.

But no president should ever want to take that position – because it represents the collapse of the American polity. But we are in collapse. If the House pushes the country into default this week, there is no workable American polity left. The most basic forms of collective responsibility will have been forsaken for almost pathological ideological purism and cultural revolt.

Waddya gonna do?

Update: There’s lots of loose talk about various ways the president might “preserve the republic” Get a load of this one.

.

What’s the matter with Kansas?

by digby

It’s run by these people:

The massive anti-choice omnibus bill passed by the Kansas legislature this month has now been signed into law, according to the Associated Press.

HB 2253 will strip tax credits for those who want to write off medical expenses associated with abortions, continue the state’s ban on all abortions after 20 weeks, even in rape cases or cases of fetal anomalies, extend so-called “conscience protections” for those who say they are being forced to participate in actions that they “reasonably believe” might cause an abortion, provide patients with inaccurate medical information prior to terminating a pregnancy and even write into the constitution that “life” begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes and egg.

That’s exactly what Republican Governor Sam Brownback hoped to see. “All human life is sacred. It’s beautiful,” Brownback said at the bill signing ceremony. “With this, we continue to build this culture of life in our state.”

I’ll give Brownback some credit. He is against the death penalty, which is unusual among these alleged life lovers.

The problem is that he values all human life tremendously, which is great, except for the human life that is a female of childbearing age. Although he has reluctantly agreed to allow abortion when the mother will die otherwise, his ongoing support for daft policies like this — and repeated emphasis on “innocent” life undermines his position:

Brownback co-sponsored applying 14th amendment protections to pre-born fetuses

A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right of life of each born and preborn human person.

The Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment at which an individual comes into being.

DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Act: The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

It’s very hard to see how you can confer “personahood” and equal protection for fetuses under the constitution while still protecting the life of the woman who could die if she doesn’t have an abortion. I’m going to guess that it would take, at the very least, the sort of legal appeals that this poor woman is undergoing in El Salvador right now.

Imagine the spectacle of a bunch of elders in black robes deciding from on high if a 22 year old woman or a zygote should be protected as a person under the constitution. It’s medieval.

By the way, it’s not as if Brownback is universally loved by Kansans:

Sam Brownback is one of the most unpopular Governors in the country. Only 37% of Kansas voters approve of him to 52% who disapprove. He meets with near universal disapproval from independents (22/66) and Democrats (14/81), but what really drives his numbers down is that even among Republicans just 55% approve of him to 30% who disapprove.

Unfortunately, the state is so Republican that it’s unlikely a Democrat can unseat him.

.

by digby

Melissa Harris-Perry has some words for Uncle Nino:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dear Justice Scalia, 

It’s me, Melissa. 

By now, we know you well enough that there’s not much you can say or do that would come as a surprise. We can set our watches by your decisions that, predictably, will be in alignment with the Court’s most radically conservative reasoning. We know that unlike your friend Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a permanent mute button on, you will always voice an opinion, and it will be heavily influenced by your political agenda.. 

But even given all of that, what you had to say during Wednesday’s oral arguments still came as a genuine shock. 

Commenting on Congress’s nearly unanimous re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, you said, “I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” 

You went on to say, “I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity…unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution…It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.” 

Racial entitlement? Not a question you can leave to Congress? Even for you, Justice Scalia, this is a particularly willful misreading of the Constitution you claim to adore. 

In fact, let’s take a look at that august document. Right here, in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and again in Section 2 of the 15th Amendment is the same entitlement…a congressional entitlement.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” 

You see Congress does in fact have the authority to enforce both equal protection and the franchise for American citizens. Especially when those citizens live in the former Confederate states.

In fact, the 14th Amendment spends much of sections two, three and four spelling out precisely how those states who were involved in “insurrection or rebellion” will be treated differently. 

Because these were states whose economies and culture rested on the inter-generational, chattel bondage of human beings. And they were so determined to keep holding human beings in slavery that they got together in armed rebellion against the country. 

Some of those same states–more than 150 years later–are still trying to pass laws that would deny the vote to the very people the Voting Rights Act, and Section 5 in particular, were meant to protect. 

So excuse me, Antonin, if I am a little dismayed that you now describe the rights of citizenship as a “racial entitlement.” 

Contrary to what you are suggesting, the Voting Rights Act was no gift given by the government to black people. Its primary purpose was to enforce a right that was already enshrined in the Constitution but had been repeatedly flouted by Southern governments. 

Here is what you miss, Justice Scalia. A great thing occurred in the 1860s when Congress had to grapple with how to include the formerly enslaved within the circle of citizenship. That effort led Congress to articulate due process, equal protection, and a federally protected right to vote. Those pillars of citizenship apply to all. 

It is the opposite of a special entitlement.

But the constitutional amendments were not enough. It took an act of Congress, almost 100 years later, to make these promises a reality for all.

So, Justice Scalia, when you spew that entitlement discourse from the bench you undermine the very core of our democracy. 

But you know what? I want to thank you for what you said. Because on Wednesday, you showed us all exactly who you are. 

And in the words of the late, great poet Notorious B.I.G.: “if we didn’t know, now we know.” 

Sincerely, 

Melissa

Held hostage by Hastert: a minority of one chamber threatens the whole country

by David Atkins

In a move that will surprise absolutely no one, Republicans are making serious threats to default on spending they already racked up in order to force devastating cuts onto a nation that resoundingly rejected their message of austerity for the middle class.

With the Obama Administration openly refusing the 14th Amendment and platinum coin choices, it becomes a game of chicken. It’s a game the Obama Administration has shown itself unwilling to play. Given the Administration’s history, it’s probable that it will seek a Grand Bargain on spending cuts despite its protestations to the contrary.

But more interesting that second-guessing that Administration’s true intentions is taking stock of the perversity of the situation. It’s not just that Republicans are threatening to take the entire nation off an economic cliff if they don’t get their way. It’s not just that the gerrymandered House is refusing to play ball with the White House and the Senate. Nor is it just that a party that dramatically lost a big election is refusing to abide by the results of that election.

It’s that a minority of a single chamber of the government is holding the country hostage. If John Boehner brings to the floor raising the debt ceiling while simply funding most of the programs cut by the sequester, a majority of House would vote for it: nearly all the Democrats, and enough Republicans either sane or more threatened from the left than from the right. But having violated the Hastert rule over the fiscal cliff, it would be nearly political suicide to do it again on the sequester where the rabid right wing feels it holds all the cards.

So what is threatening to send the country toppling into default is purely John Boehner’s ambitions to remain the Speaker, and an arcane “rule” that makes an already sclerotic government completely inoperable. A slim majority just of the House Republican caucus–a minority in the House overall–is holding the entire country hostage not through the regular Constitutional checks and balances, but through yet another abuse of yet another arcane voluntary rule that almost no one who isn’t a political obsessive knows about.

The need to enact major reforms to the American legislative system has never been more clear.

.

No more bargaining chips

by digby

So that’s that:

Stunning news from WaPo’s Ezra Klein: The Treasury is ruling out the use of a trillion dollar platinum coin to break the debt ceiling impasse.
Klein writes:

That’s the bottom line of the statement that Anthony Coley, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, gave me today. ”Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” he said.

With this, the White House has now ruled out the two best options for preventing a default in the event that the House GOP refused to life the debt ceiling. The White House has been quite adamant that the other alternative (invoking the 14th Amendment) is not acceptable.

So now the stakes are high, as The White House has refused to negotiate with the GOP on a debt ceiling hike.

What bargaining chips does The White House hold? Unclear.

Not unclear. They now have no bargaining chips and see no good reason to even pretend they have some.

Sooo, either the administration is going to hold on with more steely-eyed grit than they’ve ever shown before to try to get the Republicans to blink (which considering past negotiations, one could not blame the GOP for scoffing at) or they are eager to engage in more high stakes deficit reduction “negotiations.”

Golly, I wonder what’s going to happen?

Greg Sargent reported the other day that the Republicans have been hedging on the debt ceiling and that this emboldened the White House to hold fast and make no concessions. I replied:

It sure sounds like Boehner and McConnell are hedging to me too. If they are,then that means any more “offers” from the Democrats to make a “big deal” are offers the Democrats want to make, not ones they have to make.

I’m not sure withdrawing the threat of the coin or the 14th Amendment remedies qualifies as an offer in that context. But since they’ve thrown away their only bargaining chips before they even started, it’s fair to say that anything they agree to from now on should be seen as something they wanted, not something they needed.

But I’m sure that Ruth Marcus and David Gergen will be greatly impressed by their seriousness and maturity and that’s really all that matters.

Update: Krugman