14th and 17th Amendment

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with the general belief system proposed by Tea Partiers, the notion that these Constitutional Amendments should be repealed is both contrary to the democratic underpinning of the United States and carries significant implications of racial, ethnic and ideological prejudice.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of the 14th Amendment, one can begin to see a direct connection between the Tea Party's ambition to see it repealed and the Tea Party's pointedly prejudicial social orientation.

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 immigration policy is concerned, demonstrates the movement to be highly motivated by racialist ideologies. The hostility demonstrated toward Hispanic immigrants in particular is also seen in the movement's hostility toward African-Americans, perhaps best evidenced by its groundless scrutiny of President Obama's birth status.

This is further underscored by such assertions as that by Tea Party luminary Rand Paul, who according to Kosmonaut argued that 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because the prohibition of racial discrimination in hiring violates the private rights of corporations. This perspective, Kosmonaut asserts, coalesces with a platform that closely approximates Confederate era southern policy ideologies. Indeed, the ambition reflected in the Tea Party's treatment of the 17th Amendment corresponds directly with Confederacy assertions relating to state's rights.

The 17th Amendment, which outlines the process by which Senators are elected to serve in representation of their respective states, creates the terms involving a public electorate. The Tea Party, an article by McMorris-Santoro (2010) reports, takes the view that the 17th Amendment creates a scenario in which the federal legislature is too greatly empowered. While it is somewhat difficult to construe the rationale for this belief, it underscores the Tea Party's position. Namely, McMorris-Santoro reports, "the 'Repeal The 17th' movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure.

Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us 'more liberty' in the process.)" (McMorris-Santoro, p. 1) The sarcasm in the last sentiment expressed here by McMorris-Santoro is actually important to note as it references the clear irony in the disposition taken by the Tea Party.

Again, with an orientation that most closely resembles the ideological disposition of the Confederacy, the Tea Party has borrowed many of its rhetorical strategies from the pre-Civil War Era. At this juncture, as new states came into the growing Union, the debate over whether these would be slave-trading states or free states became inescapable. And within the context of this debate, it was commonplace for the Southern states advocating the expansion of the slave system to express consternation over the invasion of the federal government in their affairs.

A creation of new states.