Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there?

By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
  • Roland Martin says GOP and far right calling for repeal of 14th Amendment
  • They want to kill provision that allows kids born in U.S. automatic citizenship, he says
  • He says while they're at it, how about retooling entire Constitution to suit political climate
  • Martin: Wake me up when this silly sideshow is over and it's time to tackle real problems

Editor's note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith," and the new book, "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.

(CNN) -- Republicans such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Kyl and John Cornyn are tripping over themselves to jump on the latest "Dumb Way to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem" bus by suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen.

The far right has latched onto the idea that the provision in question -- which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. -- is being abused by illegal immigrants who choose to come to America to have their children, thus worsening the illegal immigration problem.

Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, the 14th Amendment was not in the first U.S. Constitution as drawn up by our framers. It was adopted on July 9, 1868, to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship to former slaves and their children, since they didn't choose to come to America. They were brought here for the purpose of the vicious and dehumanizing free-labor plan that helped build the nation -- slavery.

Video: Should birth grant citizenship?
Video: 14th Amendment controversy

It's clear that overall Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on.

We have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers instead of actually finding a bipartisan solution. So instead of leadership, we get asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

That's right, nothing.

So what is the GOP's plan? To make it retroactive? OK, how about we take it all the way back and toss out all of the white descendants and anyone else non-Native American.

They were here first, and all of us are simply intruding on the land that was theirs. Who thinks Graham, Kyl, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the other bumbling idiots we call U.S. senators would actually be able to pass the DNA test to establish whether they are Native Americans?

But hey, since it is in vogue to alter the U.S. Constitution, why don't we just go all out and have congressional hearings to re-examine the entire document? We have blue ribbon panels in Washington for everything else, so why not pop the hood on that old document and bring it into the 21st century?

Let's start with Article 1, which states that you must be at least 25 to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives and 30 in the U.S. Senate. Since our men and women can die for America beginning at the age of 17, vote at 18 and drink at 21, this is an arcane law.

We've got zillionaires building Fortune 500 companies before they are eligible to run, so why not let them take their shot? If you can be senile and serve as long as you want, why not give the young bucks a shot?

Whack the 2nd Amendment. That's right, we don't need it. If no one had guns, would we really be that bad of a country?

According to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, more than 100,000 people are shot and killed annually on average. The framers originally intended for militias to be created. With the number of city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies, they should be able to round up every gun in America. We're paying these people; so let them do what they do.

If guns were banned totally, our crime rates would be similar to that of countries such as England; our gun-related homicide rate is 44 times that of developed countries England and Wales, says the Brady Center.

Tighten up the 10th Amendment. By doing this, we get rid of the constant states' rights battles. Just put all of the relevant laws on the federal level, such as jurisdiction over education and voting, and then we won't have to have 50 different ways of doing business.

Let's junk the 22nd Amendment. If we've got a great president, why limit how long he or she can serve? I don't mind a four or five-term president. As long as the people are happy, let 'em keep handling our business! Franklin Delano Roosevelt is consistently voted the best president in American history. Would he have gotten that designation by just serving two terms?

It's un-American for a group of people to have no representation. The 23rd Amendment provides presidential electors to the District of Columbia. That's not enough. They need their own members in the House, and two U.S. senators. Fair is fair, and this is dead wrong.

The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified, and it should have been. Why continue to screw over women in a male-dominated world? Come on, guys, stop being wimps and let the ladies have their say.

I'm willing to put $1,000 down that the Republicans and Democrats won't bother backing any of this. They'll likely say this is going too far and we should take it one step at a time. The same folks want to ban gay marriage in the Constitution and now change citizenship.

Sorry, folks. The U.S. Constitution is far too precious to be messed with by a bunch of rabid politicians who don't have the guts to look their far left and right supporters in the eye and say they are going to truly lead on immigration.

Let me know when this silly sideshow is over. Like many Americans, I am too busy trying to tackle real problems. This clearly isn't one of them.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.