Verified Document

14th And 17th Amendment Term Paper

Amendments The Tea Party and the 14th and 17th Amendments

At its core, the Tea Party identifies itself as a political faction intended to reduce what it perceives as the tyrannical power of the federal government over the rights of corporations, states and citizens. This is the perspective that underlies the Tea Parties aggressive posturing in recent political affairs and especially its vitriolic hostility toward President Obama. As a part of the Tea Party's agenda, the group has sough permeating reform in governmental structures so as to reduce what is views as central executive and legislative branches with far too much authority over our lives. Within the context of this view, the Tea Party has been especially vocal where certain terms of the Bill of Rights are concerned. The arch-conservative group, recognizing the difficulty of shifting judicial perspective and precedent on Constitutional Law, has instead attempted to push quite simply for the repeal of those constitutional principles that diverge from its belief system. It is thus that the Tea Party has spearheaded the movement to repeal the 14th and 17th Amendments. However, consistent with the general belief system proposed by Tea Partiers, the notion that these Constitutional Amendments should be repealed is both contrary to the democratic underpinning of the United States and carries significant implications of racial, ethnic and ideological prejudice. If the Tea Party is successful in its mission, then it will have also succeeded in driving back American civil rights and individual liberties more than a hundred years. The result would be a significant thrust toward creating a scenario in which states would essentially retain the right to engage in highly prejudicial, racialist and bigoted policy orientation.

Beginning with consideration of the 14th Amendment, one can begin to see a direct connection between the Tea Party's ambition to see it repealed and the Tea Party's pointedly prejudicial...

The 14th Amendment, which calls for Equal Protection of all Americans under the terms of the law, government and from others in the public, was originally conceived as a response to the Dred Scott case and was pointedly intended to reverse the racialist policies denying African-Americans the right to citizenship. Its terminology and orientation however would serve to create Equal Protection and the right to Due Process for all Americans. According to the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 on the heels of the Civil War, "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." (Cornell University Law School, p. 1)
The Tea Party, on the surface, takes particular issue with the notion that the federal document should be empowered to prevent states from making laws independently. From its perspective, the 14th Amendment was at its core inherently unconstitutional because it created a means by which the federal government could override the will of the state. From the perspective of the Tea Party, not only does the 14th Amendment erode critical entitlements to the state, but it also creates a scenario in which the children of immigrants can gain citizenship. According to Kosmonaut (2010), "this is why, on first glance, the Tea Party wants to repeal the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states at any person born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. The argument goes that illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America, come to the U.S. To give birth to children who automatically become citizens in order to remain. The language employs the use of the term 'Anchor Babies.'" (Kosmonaut, p. 1)

A closer examination of the concerns expressed by the Tea Party, especially where…

Sources used in this document:
Works Cited:

Cornell University Law School. (1992). 14th Amendment. Law.cornell.edu.

Cornell University Law School. (1992). 17th Amendment. Law.cornell.edu.

Kosmonaut, D. (2010). "Birthers," Anti-Immigration and the Repeal of the 14th Amendment. Age of Nepotism.

McMorris-Santoro, E. (2010). Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble. Talking Points Memo.
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Constitutional Amendment
Words: 3092 Length: 10 Document Type: Essay

The First Amendment The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This Amendment basically protects free speech, among other rights—but in recent years it has been necessary to define

8th Constitutional Amendment Eighth Amendment
Words: 1625 Length: 5 Document Type: Essay

Lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=408&invol=238). The issues surrounding the 8th Amendment are often complex. The cruel and unusual punishment clause, for instance, may well be at a constitutional crossroads as we move into the 21st century. Depending on the health and position of society, and the manner in which globalization has changed the way America is perceived in the world, and perceives itself, a change in attitude regarding the rubric of punishment is part of

Government Constitutional Amendments: The Case
Words: 627 Length: 2 Document Type: Term Paper

The only way, it would seem, to affect the kind of change that supporters of the initiative want is to amend the state constitution, effectively changing the law of the land. Supporters argue that this is the only viable option left, especially in light of the fact that marijuana is less dangerous the alcohol -- a legal drug -- and that the war on drugs has netted no significant

Constitutional Protections in American Criminal
Words: 1668 Length: 6 Document Type: Essay

Georgia (428 U.S. 153). In that case, the Supreme Court finally ruled specifically that capital punishment was not inherently necessarily cruel or unusual, and therefore, was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment in and of itself (Schmalleger, 2008). Since Gregg, the issues surrounding the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of capital punishment relate to the specific methods of implementation in light of evidence that lethal injection, the most common method used

Constitutional Queer the Modern Legal
Words: 1723 Length: 6 Document Type: Thesis

Nelson -- the decision in which was binding on all lower courts -- was decided in favor of the state law in Minnesota banning same-sex marriages (UMT 2010). Conclusion The issue of the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are still in a state f flux and some confusion, based on the Supreme Court's rulings on the various matters. On the one hand, there is a legal mandate in place

Amendment Police Power and the
Words: 942 Length: 3 Document Type: Research Proposal

Regardless of the theoretical interpretation of this amendment, the practical effects thus far have been quite clear -- responsibilities and rights not handled by the federal government are left up to state and local governments. One of the most important areas in which this can be seen in action is through the investigation of crime. Because the federal government does not prohibit any state or locality's rights in searching

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now