Loving the 14th Amendment

by: Bill Orr

Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:31:49 AM EDT

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...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." 14th Amendment - Citizen Rights

You might think Republican strict-constructionists support this amendment to the fullest. Right? Of course, what we are hearing from members of congress, social conservatives and others is that they do not. Nonetheless, NJ Democrats and yes Republicans should not be shy in showing their love for this great amendment.

As reported by Politico, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced in late July that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would no longer grant citizenship to children of immigrants born in the United States. He crudely refers to this as "anchor babies" or "Drop and leave," but Politifact does an excellent job of countering his claims. 92 House members had already signed on to a similar 2009 bill (HR1868) including one from NJ, Scott Garrett. What Graham did not seem to note is that over hundreds of years countless children of immigrants have gone on to become essential to the fabric of our country, including colleagues of Sen. Graham currently in congress. Granting citizenship by birth location is a practice followed by many countries. It has worked well for America.

A few days later San Francisco Federal Judge Vaughn Walker said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law. To justify the proposition's inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. Although the defendants focused on "tradition," the importance of procreation, and the supposed value of child rearing via both a male and female parent, they provided no compelling basis for justifying discrimination.

The arguments and results of this case help us in NJ where a similar same-sex marriage case will be presented to a Superior Court. "Equal protection" will be a key argument.  Following our experience with failed civil unions, our significant caveat will be that separate is not equal.

NJ ratified the amendment in 1866, but our legislature tried to rescind its ratification in 1868. Although no such counteraction seems likely now, as we approach midterm elections Republicans will use these wedge issues to energize their fringe base. However, Democrats, even those in moderate or conservative districts, should also be proud to stand up for "equal protection," "due process"  and citizenship for people born here. Too frequently Democrats have been hesitant to speak out when confronted by conservative TV/radio hosts, tea party activists, and others of that ilk. I am not aware of any NJ congressman who contradicted Glenn Beck when he said, as reported by Politifact, that "we're the only country in the world" that offers birthright citizenship.  "Celebrate this incredible victory by defending it," read one Democratic e-mail that went out just after the San Francisco decision was released. Let's show our love in NJ for the 14th.