Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the rules\nunder which the Constitution can be amended, should that become necessary. Although the Constitution has been\nsuccessfully amended only twenty-seven times since March 4, 1789, most\nAmericans would be surprised to learn that some 11,770 proposed amendments have\nbeen introduced in Congress between 1789 and January 3, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first ten amendments are what we refer to as the Bill of Rights.\u00a0 These amendments were written and adopted to satisfy the objections of the Anti-Federalist (States\u2019 Rights) faction of the Constitutional Convention.\u00a0 The Bill of Rights Amendments addressed Anti-Federalist concerns regarding personal freedoms and individual rights, restrictions on government power in judicial proceedings, and a catch-all declaration stating that all powers not specifically granted to the Congress are reserved to the states or to the people.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The remainder of the amendments, numbered eleven through twenty-seven, deal with such matters as the election of presidents and vice presidents; outlawing slavery; citizenship and voting rights for former slavers; taxation authority; the election of U.S. senators; the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; women\u2019s suffrage; presidential term limits; Washington, DC, electoral rights; outlawing poll taxes; presidential disability; voting rights for 18-year-olds: and others.\u00a0 However, three constitutional shortcomings now demand our immediate attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First, and most importantly, we must take immediate steps\nto amend the Constitution to eliminate the concept of \u201cbirthright citizenship.\u201d The 14th<\/sup> Amendment, ratified on\nJuly 9, 1868, was designed to provide citizenship for all those previously\nenslaved individuals who became Freedmen when President Lincoln signed the\nEmancipation Proclamation. The amendment\nwas never intended to confer citizenship on those who just happened to be born\non American soil, with no effort on their part. \nAs written, the amendment proclaims, \u201cAll persons born or naturalized\nin the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of\nthe United States and of the State wherein they reside\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, since the 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong\nKim Ark, <\/em>the courts have held that it is sufficient for infants to claim\n\u201cbirthright citizenship,\u201d so long as they are born on American soil, no matter\nthe country of residence or the citizenship status of the child\u2019s parents. Ignoring the fact that children born to alien\nparents on American soil have no formal connection to the United States, the\ncourts have rendered the phrase \u201cand subject to the jurisdiction thereof\u201d<\/em>\nmeaningless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The center for Immigration Studies estimated in 2012\n(the most recent figures available) that there were then approximately 40,000\nannual births in the United States to \u201cbirth tourist\u201d parents. However, since 2012, a cottage industry\ncalled \u201cmaternity hotels\u201d has developed. \nFor example, it has been reported that the Trump Tower II hotel in\nMiami, Florida, has become a \u201cmaternity hotel\u201d specializing in Russian \u201cbirth\ntourists.\u201d Russian parents can give\nbirth to an infant with American citizenship by paying a fee as small as\n$20,000 or as much as $85,000. Wikipedia\ntells us that the deluxe program includes food, lodging, Russian-speaking\nobstetricians, gold-tiled bathtubs, and chauffeur-driven limousines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although it appears as if a great many Americans\nremain unconvinced that \u201cbirth tourism\u201d is a bad thing, the \u201cbirth tourist\u201d\nindustry is one that must be eliminated. A 2015 Pew Research survey found that 53% of\nRepublicans and only 23% of Democrats oppose the concept. What is needed is an amendment\nclarifying the 14th<\/sup> Amendment, requiring that alien parents must be\nfull-time legal U.S. residents for a period of years before their newborn\ninfants can expect to have \u201cbirthright citizenship.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Next in order of importance is an amendment to Article\nII, Section 1 of the Constitution, specifying the manner in which presidential\nelectors are allocated in the various states. \nAlthough states must retain the power to determine how electors are chosen,\nthe question of whether states should be allowed to utilize a winner-take-all\nsystem, as opposed to the more democratic system now used by the states of\nMaine and Nebraska, is debatable. To\nallow the winner-take-all system to be used at the discretion of the state\nlegislatures is to guarantee an unrepresentative system in which a small number\nof states with very large cities will be able to determine who will lead our\ncountry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the 2000\npresidential election, a switch of just 271,951 votes would have given George\nW. Bush a narrow popular vote victory over Democrat Al Gore, along with a 271\nto 266 vote victory in the Electoral College. \nThe 2000 Bush-Cheney victory in the Electoral College, while losing the\nnational popular vote, caused liberals, Democrats, and some moderate\nRepublicans to search for ways in which to bypass the Electoral College. The result was the creation of an organization\ncalled the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The NPVIC actively seeks support among the\nlegislatures of the various states in support of a rule requiring that all of\ntheir state\u2019s electoral votes be cast for the candidates for president and vice\npresident who receive a majority of the national popular vote\u2026 regardless of\nthe popular vote count in each of the Compact states. What the NPVIC \u201creformers\u201d have failed to\nconsider is the outcome of the 2000 Electoral College vote if the NPVIC rule\nhad been in place in all the blue states in the country, and if Bush-Cheney had\nbeen able to attract just one additional vote out of every 373 votes cast to\nwin a narrow majority in the national popular vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In that event, the NPVIC proponents would have been\nquite chagrined to learn that, under the NPVIC rule, George W. Bush and Dick\nCheney would have been the beneficiaries of a 538-0 unanimous vote in the\nElectoral College\u2026 not exactly what Compact supporters had in mind. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is needed is an amendment to Article II, Section\n1 of the Constitution, requiring the states to adopt an electoral vote\nallocation formula in which the winner of each state\u2019s popular vote would\nreceive his\/her state\u2019s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of\neach state\u2019s electoral votes would be allocated to reflect the winner of the\npopular vote in each of the state\u2019s congressional districts. It is the most democratic reform available\nand it would require candidates to campaign in many more states than the\nso-called \u201cswing\u201d states of recent years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third, and final, constitutional shortcoming\nrequiring our attention is the need for a clear definition of the term \u201cnatural\nborn Citizen,\u201d as used in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As the Framers met in Philadelphia in July 1887 to\napprove a final draft of the U.S. Constitution, delegate John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, sent a letter\nto General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention. In his letter, Jay expressed his concern over\nthe prospect of allowing an individual with any form of foreign allegiance,\nwhether real or perceived, to serve as president of the United States and\ncommander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy. \nHe wrote: \u201cPermit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to\nprovide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration\nof our national government; and to declare expressly that the\ncommander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on,\nany but a natural born<\/em> citizen\n(emphasis added).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Framers rightly understood that the most\ninfluential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he\/she receives as\na child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious\ninfluence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of\nhis\/her future conduct and intellectual development. Accordingly, what\nthe Framers feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency\nonly to the \u201cnatural born\u201d was the fear that a future president\u2026 during his\nformative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually\u2026\nwould be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him\/her to\nreject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Constitution contains the\nclause cited above, requiring that all candidates for president and vice\npresident must be \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens, individuals whose citizenship status\nis unencumbered by any modifying adjective such as \u201cdual,\u201d \u201cnaturalized,\u201d or\n\u201cbirthright.\u201d They cannot be \u201cdual\u201d\ncitizens, as is the case with Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Ted Cruz, Bobby\nJindal, Marco Rubio, or Nikki Haley. And\nthey cannot be \u201cnaturalized\u201d citizens, as is the case with former California\ngovernor Arnold Schwarzenegger. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As a nation of some 320 million people,\nthere is enough political talent available to us to forego the necessity of\ndelving into our large population of non-natural born citizens for presidential\nand vice-presidential talent. Accordingly,\na clarifying amendment to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is needed to make it\nclear, as the Framers intended, that a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen is an individual\nwho was born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of his\/her\nbirth, and who has at no time in his\/her life been a dual citizen of the United States and any other country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the\nearliest days of the 20th<\/sup> century, aliens wishing to avoid U.S. immigration\nand naturalization statutes have utilized liberalized interpretations of the 14th<\/sup>\nAmendment to win U.S. citizenship for their newborn infants, making it possible\nfor extended family members to gain unfair and unintended legal residency\nstatus. That citizenship loophole must\nbe eliminated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We must also take a lesson from the\ntwo-term presidency of Barack Obama. Obama\u2019s\nfather was a Muslim and a black African communist sympathizer; his mother was a\nleft wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim; his\ngrandparents were far-left communist sympathizers; his teenage mentor, Frank\nMarshall Davis, was a well-known Communist Party writer and activist; the\npeople who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were\nWeather Underground terrorists who had killed U.S. law enforcement officers;\nand his religious mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the\nfirst order. These are but a few of the\nfar-left radicals who had a major impact on Obama\u2019s social, political, and\neconomic values. So, is it any wonder\nthat he attempted to \u201cfundamentally transform\u201d the government and the culture\nof the greatest nation on Earth? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Framers were concerned that\nat some future time a relatively small number of megalopolis urban cities would\nhave populations sufficient to control the selection of our national\nleaders. Their concern that the day\nwould come when small and sparsely populated states would have little or no say\nin the selection of our presidents and vice presidents led them to create the\nU.S. Electoral College. It has served\nour nation well and we must take steps to protect it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul R. Hollrah is a\nretired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S.\nElectoral College. He currently lives\nand writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma\u2019s Green Country.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the rules under which the Constitution can be amended, should that become necessary. Although the Constitution has been successfully amended only twenty-seven times since March 4, 1789, most Americans would be surprised to … Continue reading