Birthright Citizenship
Amendment XIV, Section 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.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the ultimate law of the land. I firmly believe in the Constitution, and I believe the Constitution should be followed. That being said, the Constitution is not a perfect document. After all, when the Constitution was originally ratified, it allowed for slavery to be legal in the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, finally resolved that issue.
I believe there is another part of the Constitution that needs to be fixed. I propose that an amendment should be passed to change the first sentence of Amendment XIV, Section 1. We need to amend the Constitution so that not all people who are born in United States automatically become citizens.
We are facing a problem in the country. There are many instances of illegal female immigrants crossing into this country and, while in this country unlawfully, giving birth to a child. Considering the way that the Fourteenth Amendment is worded, that child of the illegal immigrant automatically becomes a citizen of the United States. And with that citizenship, that child is then given all the rights of a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, these “anchor babies” provide a basis for the illegal mothers and possibly other relatives to establish permanent U.S. residency.
Why should the child of a person who is in this country illegally receive all the privileges that come along with being a United States citizen simply because they are born within our borders? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unlawful behavior on the illegal mother’s part should not result in a reward for the child.
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in 1866, and it was ratified in 1868. Coming on the heels of the Civil War, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect the rights of native-born black Americans, who were being denied their rights after being freed from slavery. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the so-called Citizenship Clause, clearly spelled out the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
From this statement, it is clear that the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was not to allow illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship for their children simply by crossing the border and giving birth while on American soil. From the original intent of the Amendment, the baby of an illegal alien mother was to be a citizen of the mother’s native country.
Knowing the original intention, it is clear that the wording chosen by Senator Howard in the Citizenship Clause is poor at best. In the form that The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a person born in the United States is an automatic citizen, regardless of the mother's citizenship status. (Of course, this does not apply in the case when a parent is a diplomat from another country at the time the baby is born in the United States. I know of nobody who argues against this point.) That being said, we can easily resolve the issue through an amendment to the Constitution stating that citizenship is not automatically granted to all people born within the borders of the United States.
At the same time that we address the poor wording of Amendment XIV, Section 1, we could also make it explicitly clear what is meant by the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution with regards to eligibility for becoming President of the United States. Natural born American citizenship should be granted to a child through at least one parent being a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. Any issues that could potentially arise in the future as a result of the current ambiguity would be nipped in the bud, instead of possibly ending up in the Supreme Court’s lap for an interpretation.
In one expertly-crafted amendment, we could address two pressing concerns regarding citizenship in the United States of America. The question of what exactly a “natural born Citizen” is would be settled, and Congress, by means of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, would be free to determine the process for determining rules for obtaining citizenship through naturalization.
Birthers
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President of the United States.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, many people began questioning whether Barack Obama was eligible to be President. The argument was made that Barack Obama was foreign-born, possibly in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President. Numerous lawsuits were filed, and many of them were thrown out. It was reasonably determined that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii and met the natural born citizen criteria to be President. In fact, an official Hawaii birth certificate was eventually produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Honolulu newpapers.
Now, six months after Barack Obama’s inauguration, there are still many doubters. In recent days, at numerous gatherings around the country, the people who doubt the eligibility of Obama to be President have loudly voiced their concerns. There is now even a term for those who doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen; they are known as “birthers”.
I have seen Republican leaders deal with the issue in two different ways. There is one group of Republicans who will outright say that the birthers are completely wrong. They flat out say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, thus being eligible to be President.
But there is another group of Republican leaders who seem to relish the energy and potential chaos that can be caused by the birthers. These Republicans seem to know the truth, but with a wink and a nod they cater to the birthers and stoke the flames of controversy. Personally, I find this tactic to be shameful.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. He meets all the criteria spelled out in the United States Constitution to be President of the United States. Period. End of story. That issue is settled. Those who continue to encourage the birthers to be so vocal need to stop what they are doing immediately. Be truthful with the people of the United States.
At the same time, 10 members of Congress have co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. I don’t see any problem with this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring candidates to prove that they meet the requirements spelled out in the Constitution to be President of the United States.
I can understand that many people are unhappy about Barack Obama being President. Personally, I voted for Fred Thompson in the primary and John McCain in the general election. But the proper way to deal with the situation is to look at the policies that Obama has pushed forward in the past, is currently advocating, or is planning to pursue in the future. There is more than enough there to find fault with. Criticisms can be made in a logical and coherent manner. It is time for sanity to prevail.
Congressional Successors
The original text of the United States Constitution states that each U.S. Senator was to be chosen by their individual state legislature. With the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, the power of choosing a Senator was taken away from the state legislatures and given to the people of the state to elect. In the event of a vacancy of office, the state legislature could empower the Governor of that state to make a temporary appointment to fill that vacancy until the people get a chance to vote for a new Senator.
With regards to the House of Representatives, The United State Constitution has always provided for the direct election of the each member by the people of the state. In the event of a vacancy, a special election must be held to elect a new Representative. In 2005, Congress decreed that states should hold special elections within 49 days of a House seat becoming vacant. But Congress’ mandate did not specify the consequences of not holding such an election within the prescribed 49 days, and many states have since held special elections after periods longer than 49 days.
Recently, Representatives Brian Baird (D-WA) and Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) brought up the idea of a new Constitutional Amendment. Their idea is to allow members of Congress to pick their successor in case they are killed or incapacitated. Their reasoning is that, in the event of a catastrophic attack, a large number of Congressmen could be killed or disabled. In such a case, the government could become paralyzed. According to John Fortier, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “The real important decisions are made in the two to three months after an attack. At the end of the day, we’re not much more prepared than we were on 9/11.”
Under the proposal by Baird and Rohrbacher, each member of Congress would designate three possible replacements. In the event of a catastrophic event where a “significant” (no exact definition of “significant” was spelled out) number of Congressmen were killed or incapacitated, the Speaker of the House, the President pro tem of the Senate, or the Vice President of the United States would fill each vacant seat with one of the designees. The designees would only serve until the affected member regained capacity or if another member was elected. The alternate members would be prohibited from serving in another elected office, such as a State Senate.
This is a horrible idea. I believe the fact that Congressmen are directly elected by the people is very important. The idea of an elected official hand-picking a possible successor flies in the face of allowing the people to choose the people who represent them. In fact, I would go further to say that we should consider revising the Seventeenth Amendment to remove the power of state legislatures to allow Governors to make temporary appointments to the Senate. A vacancy in the Senate should be resolved by a vote by the people of that State.
I’m not convinced for the need to devise a plan for replacement of Congressmen in the event of such a catastrophic attack. I feel that special elections could be held to fill open spots in a timely manner.
But if people do feel the need to devise a plan for succession for Congress, it should more closely resemble the procedure in place for replacing a President. After the Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President pro tem (all of which are elected positions), the Presidential line of succession falls upon members of the Cabinet. The Cabinet positions are held by people who have been confirmed by the Senate. That is at least some sort of check on the authority of that person to potentially fill in as President of the United States. If direct election by the people is not feasible, any future plan that is created for succession in the event of a “significant” (which must be clearly defined) number of Congressmen being killed or incapacitated should involve a process where the designated successor must be confirmed by the Senate before becoming a possible replacement.
Thune-Vitter Amendment
I am no legal expert, but I am fairly confident that I understand the basics of how the United States is supposed to work. The United States Constitution is the backbone of our country. The Constitution lays out how the country will operate. It spells out the three branches of government, and it delineates the relationship between the federal government and the states. The Constitution is the core of what our country is all about, and it is the ultimate guide. Under the framework of the Constitution, the federal government can enact laws that apply to all American citizens. At no point can federal law contradict the Constitution. Any powers that are not reserved for the federal government by the United States Constitution or prohibited to the states by the United States Constitution are then reserved to the states or to the people. Each state in the Union has its own State Constitution. No State Constitution is allowed to be in violation of the United States Constitution or of federal law. State lawmakers can pass laws that are consistent with their State Constitution. Local municipalities can also enact laws, but those laws cannot violate state or federal laws. That is how I understand things to be.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Being as states are not allowed to violate the Constitution or federal law, states should not be allowed to enact laws or regulations that violate the Second Amendment. And yet, it seems that many states and local governments do, in fact, violate the Constitution by not allowing law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I applied for a concealed weapons permit (CCW) in my home state of California a few years ago. Even though I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, I was denied my concealed weapons permit because of California’s biased procedures for issuing CCWs. These procedures basically ensure that residents in certain counties are not granted CCWs unless they are extremely rich and/or well-connected. But at the same time, I have gone through the proper training and paperwork to be granted a concealed weapons permit by two other states. Considering the current reciprocity rules between states, with my two CCWs, I can legally carry a concealed weapon in 31 states. Ironically, however, I still cannot legally carry in California, the state in which I live in and spend the overwhelming majority of my time in.
Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have introduced an amendment to Senate Bill 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The Thune-Vitter amendment would authorize individuals who have met the requirements for a carry permit, or who are otherwise allowed by state law to carry a firearm, to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried. States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner in which handguns are carried. Plain and simple, the Thune-Vitter amendment would allow citizens to retain the rights that are guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The need for personal protection does not stop at a state’s border. Competent, law-abiding Americans should have the right to protect themselves in whatever state they are in. Allowing citizens of one state, who are properly trained and licensed to carry concealed weapons, to carry in another state makes complete sense. After all, federal law requires states to recognize driver licenses of people from other states. The fact that a citizen can prove they are competent to drive in one state allows them to drive in another state. How is this different from a person carrying a concealed weapon? If you are competent to carry a concealed weapon in one state, the federal government can pass legislation to ensure that you are allowed to carry in other states. And, after all, the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Second Amendment. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding any fundamental right to drive.
The United States Senate will likely vote on the Thune-Vitter amendment within a day or two. Congress has the constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. In this case, that fundamental right is the right to bear arms, which is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment. It is critical that the Senate accepts the Thune-Vitter amendment into S. 1390.
NUMMI
New United Motors Manufacturing Inc. is an automotive manufacturing plant in my hometown of Fremont, CA. The plant was launched as a joint venture between general Motors and Toyota in 1984 and helped introduce the efficiencies of Japanese manufacturing to America’s shores. The Toyota Corolla, Toyota Tundra, and Pontiac Vibe are currently being manufactured there. As part of its restructuring plan with the federal government, GM recently announced that it is pulling out of NUMMI. With the loss of its partner and the current economic conditions, Toyota then indicated that it was considering closing down the plant.
NUMMI is the City of Fremont’s largest employer. The plant directly employs approximately 4,700 workers. Another 15,000+ jobs in the State of California are indirectly tied to the plant via suppliers, vendors, and small-parts manufacturers. In total, these 20,000 jobs represent $523 million in annual payroll and benefits.
An interesting phenomenon is now occurring. California is one of only three states that charges sales taxes on the purchase of manufacturing equipment. Democratic lawmakers in the state capitol are now saying that the state needs to step in with tax relief to help the NUMMI plant stay open. The Democrats are proposing legislation that would give the governor the authority to negotiate with Toyota to eliminate the sales tax on manufacturing equipment, declare the NUMMI plant an enterprise zone, give the plant a 70 percent reduction in the Public Goods Charge through the Public Utilities Commission for two years, and require that the state give priority to NUMMI in purchasing cars and trucks built at the plant. The decreased revenues for the state due to this plan could be more than $20 million. But the Democrats contend that that loss is more than worth it if it allows NUMMI to remain open and continue to employ tens of thousands of workers and pump money through the economy.
All of this is interesting considering that Democrats are usually outspoken advocates against corporate tax cuts. Why, then, have they all of a sudden had a change of heart? After all, if Democrats can see that tax cuts are good in this situation, why can they not see that tax cuts for corporations are good in other situations? California burdens corporations with taxes and ever-growing regulations, and the state is routinely rated by executives as having among the worst business climates in the nation. Why do Democrats have to wait until a company is on the verge of shutting its doors before they can ease off on their anti-corporation policies?
The bill in question, ABX4 31, was introduced by Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont, who just happens to be the Assemblymember representing the district in which I live. “We can no longer afford to lose even a single job here. Particularly those that pay well, provide health care benefits, and whose workers, when they are working, pay income tax, buy things, and we collect sales tax. Most troubling is when people lose jobs, they lose their homes,” said Torrico. Ellen Corbett, D-Fremont, who happens to be the State Senator representing the area in which I live, also supports the plan. “The plant is a major force in California and countless thousands of jobs can be hurt if the plant does close. It would not only impact the suppliers and vendors, but the local economy – the grocery stores, the local health care providers,” said Corbett.
In this situation, I firmly agree with the statements of both Alberto Torrico and Ellen Corbett. The key difference is that I recognize all businesses as being contributing members of society who employ people and help money flow through the economy. This is not a concept that only applies in certain situations; this is a general principle that always applies.
It appears that it is only when the government policies reach the point where people are in imminent risk of losing their jobs that Democrats will finally take the action that should have been undertaken long before. It is only when Democrats see the potential loss of political support due to the job cuts that occurred under their own watch that they are willing to step in and act as if they are superheroes coming to save the day. The fact remains that, if they truly cared about the people in the way they claim to, they would enact business-friendly rules that would prevent the threat of job losses in the first place.
I would also like to note one other thing. For approximately two years, the Oakland Athletics, my personal favorite baseball team, was looking at moving to Fremont. In addition to a new ballpark, A’s Managing Partner Lew Wolff was looking to build retail shopping and housing, creating a new ballpark village. I thought that this was a great idea in that it would provide thousands of new jobs in the area and create huge amounts of tax revenue for the city. (Admittedly, I also wanted to see my beloved Athletics move to my hometown.) The initial location of the new development was to be near the Pacific Commons retail shopping center off Auto Mall Parkway. After concerns arose from a few Pacific Commons retailers about traffic, parking, and congestion issues, a second potential ballpark location was found closer to the NUMMI plant. In addition to Warm Springs residents who expressed concerns about possible congestion problems related to the second site, the NUMMI plant also voiced opposition to this second location. In the face of so much resistance, last February, Lew Wolff and the A’s decided to scrap their plans to move to Fremont and are now looking at San Jose as a possible new destination.
If it turns out that the NUMMI plant closes, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be regretting the decision to resist the Oakland A’s moving to Fremont. With the loss of NUMMI, Fremont would be in even greater need of the tax revenue and jobs that would have been generated by the A’s in Fremont. Furthermore, if the NUMMI plant closes, that would more than offset any congestion concerns that would arise from a new ballpark in Warm Springs. Perhaps it is time for the leaders of the City of Fremont to make a renewed appeal to Lew Wolff to bring the A’s to our town.
Health Care vs. Civil Liberties
The Obama administration is currently in the process of trying to get a government health care plan passed by Congress. I am going to try to hold off on an in-depth analysis of that situation until a more concrete plan is put forward. But I can already say a few things about the general concept. I firmly believe that health care is not a right that is guaranteed to citizens. I can find no place in the United States Constitution where health care is guaranteed to anybody. Health care is a luxury that people must pay for to enjoy the benefits of. Whether they receive health care through their work or pay for it all on their own, they must pay for it to receive it. To simply expect the government to subsidize one’s health care is absolutely absurd. Beyond that, the government has absolutely no right to mandate that people get health care, and health care providers should not be forced to cover all people. Preemptively, I am going to assume that the Obama administration is going to try to pay for its new government health care scheme by increasing taxes on the wealthy. I cannot support the notion of the wealthy having to pay a disproportionate share of the cost for the health care of others. It is inherently unfair to put the excess burden of the many on the shoulders of the few. Also, society should be outraged if any proposed health care plan includes coverage for immigrants who are in the United States illegally. Beyond emergency health care, illegal aliens should not be allowed access to any government health care system.
With those broad notions already addressed, I would like to go on a little bit of a health care thought experiment. (I like to do these general, non-detailed thought experiments to begin thinking through issues.) In California, drivers are required to wear seatbelts and motorcycle riders are required to wear helmets. Why is this so? Clearly, this is a different situation than laws against driving under the influence of alcohol. A drunk driver is endangering the lives of everyone else out on the roads. But why do we need to wear helmets or seatbelts? Granted, the person wearing the helmet or the seatbelt would probably receive less severe injuries in the event of a crash than if they were to utilize such safety devices than if they were to not use them. But if a person who is wearing a seatbelt were to crash into me, I am not going to be any less injured than if that person had not been wearing a seatbelt. The same goes for a situation where I was to get into an accident with a motorcycle being driven by a rider without a helmet. There would be no noticeable difference upon me in the outcome of the accident. I can make my own decision of whether or not to use such safety devices completely independently of the decisions of other drivers. What, then, is the benefit to society of having seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws? The answer is in health care costs. The fact that wearing a seatbelt or a helmet will reduce the injuries of the driver lowers the health care costs resulting from an accident. Those who choose to use the safety devices will likely be less severely injured in the event of a crash. Because of this, these safety measures help keep health care premiums down.
Now, what if the government were to be involved directly in the health care process? What if the government had a health care option that was being utilized by significant portions of society? Assuming that the government would want to keep health care affordable to all by keeping costs down, would it not make sense to assume that the government would be interested in regulating other aspects of the lives of the people in order to reduce health care costs? I mean, why would they stop with seatbelt laws? Skydiving is an inherently dangerous activity. Beyond the realm of military applications, very few people need to know how to skydive. What is to stop the government from passing a law prohibiting Americans from skydiving for the fun of it? They could do so using the exact same reasoning behind the seatbelt requirement in that the ban on skydiving reduces potential health care costs. The same goes for bungee jumping. Forget about engaging in such activities for fun. In order to keep health care affordable, the government might just start outlawing such risky behaviors. And they could justify doing so on the basis that it is necessary to keep health care costs in check. This is a possible future when the government has sunstantial amounts invested in the health status of significant portions of the population.
We also know that people who eat right and get proper amounts of exercise are more likely to be healthy than those who don’t. Could it be possible that, in order to keep health care costs down, the government might outlaw potato chips, candy bars, and sodas? After all, these snacks are not necessary, and they are harmful to people’s health. Or perhaps the government could decide that that Americans must engage in certain amounts of exercise weekly. Failure to follow protocol could result in progressively harsher fines.
This thought exercise might sound like I am being paranoid, but are these ideas really all that far-fetched? There are already legislators who are trying to tax snack foods, and certain school districts require students to engage in certain levels of physical exercise. The ideas are already out there. The process has already begun.
As Americans, we live in the greatest nation in the world. We should have the right to engage in activities that do not adversely affect the lives of others. If we want to go skydiving or bungee jumping, we should have the right to do so. We should have the right to eat whatever foods we want to eat and to get as mush or as little exercise as we wish. The government should not step in and limit our freedom to live our lives as we want to live them. They should not regulate personal behavior that doesn’t affect others. The problem arises when the government has significant skin the game. It is at that point when the power of the government to pass regulations in order to control health care costs can come into direct conflict with American civil liberties.
Any government health care plan which requires all tax payers to pay into the systems does not allow for the individual to choose to opt out of being involved. As such, whether choosing to use the government plan or choosing to remain with a private health care plan, every citizen will be forced to pay the costs associated with the risky behaviors of others. Without the ability to opt-out and not have to pay into the system, individuals would have the right to be upset with the risky behaviors of others and pressure could grow to restrict the behaviors of others. That is not the kind of America that I want to live in. I want to live in an America where people have the liberty to live their lives as they want as long as they do not harm others in the process.
By allowing health care to remain primarily in the hands of the private sector, we can continue to enjoy the freedoms of being Americans without forcing the higher costs of those behaviors to be passed on to all other members in society. Private health care organizations can factor the behavior of its members into its premiums. If the premiums of one health care provider are too high, you can choose to use a different provider. And when you finally do choose a health care provider, you can feel confident that you are making your own decisions and paying for the level of coverage that you want. You are making a conscious decision to opt-in and assume the costs associated with the behaviors of others in that health care plan and with only those in that private health care plan. The riskiness of the behaviors of everyone else in society would be of no matter to you. You wouldn’t be forced by the government to subsidize the unhealthy activities of everyone in society. And you will still have the freedom to live your life without the impedance of unnecessary government regulations. That is the kind of America that I want to live in.
Incorporation of the Second Amendment
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In January 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, ruled that the Second Amendment only applies at the federal level. This ruling in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion stated, “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” The ruling cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. In Presser, the Supreme Court ruled, “the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
I believe the Second Circuit was incorrect in their Maloney ruling. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’” Stating in Heller that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia” the Supreme Court held that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.
Every other part of the Bill of Rights is extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which utilizes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
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.
For some inexplicable reason, the Second Circuit’s ruling in Maloney disregarded the Fourteenth Amendment. But not all sanity is gone in the realm of the Court of Appeals. In April 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller. The Ninth Circuit said, “We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition… We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”
It is clear from the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling and in the Ninth Circuit’s Nordyke decision that the Second Amendment does indeed restrict the power of state and local governments to interfere with individual right to have guns for personal use. I believe it is our duty as American citizens to ensure that our rights to own firearms, which are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, should not be violated by overzealous politicians who are trying to cater to special interest groups. We should look to elect officials who will actively preserve the rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution and protect those rights from ever being infringed upon.
Sonia Sotomayor
Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing for the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to take place. From everything that I understand, unless some unknown bombshell of breaking news (such as the evidence of failure to pay her taxes or evidence that she has employed an illegal alien in her house) comes up in the next few days, Sotomayor will easily be confirmed by the Senate.
I am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination. I am not a judge. I am not a lawyer. I am not a law clerk. I never even thought about attending law school. That being said, I have my reservations about Sonia Sotomayor becoming a part of the Supreme Court of the United States. I don’t want to get into her ruling in the case of the New Haven firefighters or in the case of whether the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution apply to the individual states. Those are specific cases that need to be looked at individually at a different time. Instead, I am taking a broad look at the way Judge Sotomayor sees the world and the role of judges in society. Sotomayor has made a number of statements that give me pause.
Sotomayor’s most often critiqued quote is from a 2001 symposium at U.C. Berkeley’s School of Law. The conference’s theme was “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” In her speech, Sotomayor made a point of stating that the life experiences of women and minorities allows them to look at issues from unique points of view, ultimately leading to better judgments and greater overall justice. Normally, only the very last sentence of her comment is cited by the media. In the hopes of providing a more comprehensive look at her position, I have decided to cite a larger piece of the speech. Sotomayor said:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
This view on the ability of certain judges to make “better” conclusions is disconcerting. I am a realist. I can understand how a person’s life experiences may cause them to be more understanding of or more sympathetic to certain people or causes. But the moment a judge steps into the courtroom, that judge should make a conscious effort to look at the facts of the case before him or her objectively and to make rulings based on the law, not on personal opinion. But Sotomayor went even further than simply saying it is acceptable to let one’s life experiences supersede the law. She went on to state that she has an inherent desire to believe that the life experiences of a wise Latina woman would make it more likely to reach a better conclusion than a white male who has had a different accumulation of life experiences. Outrageous. What if we were to change around Sotomayor’s statement to read, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a minority female who hasn’t lived that life”? The public would be outraged. There would be calls of gender and race discrimination. There should be similar outrage with Sotomayor’s statement. As far as I’m concerned, a wise person will be more likely to reach a better conclusion than a less wise person would be, regardless of race or gender. Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of who the person is. That is the way things should be.
The second statement made by Sotomayor that concerns me is not cited in the media nearly as much as her “wise Latina woman” remark. At a 2005 conference at the Duke University Law School, Sotomayor said:
All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. You know.
Sotomayor ended her statement by laughing. From what I was always taught, the legislature makes the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. The fact that Sotomayor appears to laugh off this basic notion scares me. It indicates to me that she is an activist judge, who, if confirmed, will be an activist Supreme Court Justice. She will try to push forward her own agenda via her position on the bench. I don’t want my laws being created by judges. I want my laws being created by elected officials in the legislature. During her confirmation hearings, I look forward to Sotomayor explaining exactly how she sees the role of the courts with regards to the concept of making policy.
The last big picture issue that I have with Sonia Sotomayor stems from a quote of hers from the early 1990s. Sotomayor said:
I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx and from what is traditionally described as a socio-economically poor background. My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale. Not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions… But if we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable whether I would have been accepted.
She went on to say that there are cultural biases built into testing and the attempt to balance out those effects was one of the motivations behind affirmative action. Clearly, Sotomayor believes that affirmative action is a good thing. I most definitely do not. There comes a time when people need to stop making excuses. In life, decisions need to be made, and criteria are often set forth from which to make decisions. To give any race a leg up over another for no other reason than simply being that race is not fair. It is discrimination, plain and simple. I firmly believe in judging a person for who they are, not by the color of their skin. I cannot support holding anybody back because of their race. And by that same reasoning, I cannot support giving anybody an advantage because of their race. The fact that Sotomayor believes differently on this basic notion of fairness causes me to be leery about her ability to make any sort of wise decisions.
As Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin, I am sure that other issues will arise. Her notable rulings in various cases will be scrutinized. I am confident that I will believe that she ruled properly in some of those decisions and that she ruled improperly in others. But from what I have already seen about her broad outlook of the role of a judge, I am certain that Judge Sotomayor is most definitely not the best candidate to replace David Souter as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.