When Michael Gerson asks below
if Lindsey Graham thinks that
Congress and three-fifths of state legislatures will undertake a multi-year effort to feed racial conflict in America?
he`s saying that birthright citizenship can`t be ended without a Constitutional Amendment.
This is wrong, the Constitution never had birthright citizenship in it in the first place. The first commenter on his article knows better:
We may well not need a constitutional amendment to end birth right citizenship.There is an 1884 Supreme Court decision Elk v Wilkins that may well provide the foundation for ending birth right citizenship. It may well be that in giving citizenship to people born in this country to illegal immigrants we have been misapplying the law. Before anyone jumps down my throat I urge them to actually read the decision and I am not definitely saying that this decision will end birth right citizenship, all I am saying is that this issue is not as clear cut as many people want us to believe.Posted by: jeffreed | July 30, 2010 1:35 PM
It`s possible that that commenter found out about Elk Vs. Wilkins
from our article on the subject, Weigh Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause.
He wouldn`t have found out about the case from Michael Gerson or the Washington Post