Tea Party's Push to Repeal the 14th and 17th Amendments

Introduction: The Tea Party's Constitutional Agenda

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 Party's aggressive posturing in recent political affairs and especially its vitriolic hostility toward President Obama. As part of the Tea Party's agenda, the group has sought sweeping reform in governmental structures so as to reduce what it views as central executive and legislative branches with far too much authority over citizens' 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with the general belief system proposed by Tea Partiers, the notion that these constitutional amendments should be repealed is both contrary to the democratic underpinnings of the United States and carries significant implications of racial, ethnic, and ideological prejudice. If the Tea Party were to succeed in its mission, it would also have succeeded in driving back American civil rights and individual liberties by 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.

The 14th Amendment and Equal Protection

Beginning with the 14th Amendment, one can see a direct connection between the Tea Party's ambition to see it repealed and the movement's pointedly prejudicial social orientation. The 14th Amendment, which calls for equal protection of all Americans under the law and government, 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, 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)

Immigration, Race, and Tea Party Opposition to the 14th Amendment

The Tea Party, on the surface, takes particular issue with the notion that a 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. Moreover, the Tea Party argues that the amendment 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 that 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 of Tea Party luminary Rand Paul, who, according to Kosmonaut, argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because the prohibition of racial discrimination in hiring violates the private rights of corporations.

Conclusion: Liberty for the Few

It should not be seen as surprising that today, the Tea Party has taken up the mantle of this argument. And it is also no coincidence that its policy orientation emerged in response to the election of the nation's first African American president. For the Tea Party, the repeal of the 14th and 17th Amendments is presented as relating to the protection of states' rights. However, a closer examination of the ideological orientation of its members and of the history of this very argument suggests that a far more insidious set of ambitions is at play. As the Tea Party stands vocally on the rhetoric of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, its members share silently the view that these opportunities are to be preserved only for a select few and directly at the expense of others.

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.