President Donald Trump has named an exceedingly controversial nominee to replace esteemed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Aside from the fact that it turns out that our senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, along with every other Republican in the senate lied to us in 2016 regarding the reason to deny then-President Obama his constitutional right to name a Supreme Court justice and thus steal a seat, this nominee doesn’t deserve confirmation simply because she doesn’t believe in the actual constitution, or at least, the parts she doesn’t like.

She, along with numerous far right “thinkers,” claim that the 14th amendment is illegitimate. The Fox News crowd suggests that birthright citizenship clause was only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and is not applicable to future generations. Some go so far as to claim that since southern senators weren’t seated at the time due to the aftermath of the Civil War, both the 14th and 15th amendments are null and void.

JC Dufresne is a liberal activist and current member of the State Democratic Executive Committee, representing Senate District 25.

Recommended for you

(1) comment


Bait and switch. “Is it in this hand, or this one?”.

Mr Dufresne again attempts to convince an audience of his position by altering the facts and coloring the opposition as ‘less than honorable.’.

FACT - the 14th Amendment was authored by Congressman John A. Bingham (R-OHIO) specifically to ensure that former slaves were not deprived of their rights under the constitution as a result of their being freed.

FACT - The aforementioned Congressman specifically denied that the 14th Amendment was to allow persons of foreign allegiance to be provided citizenship merely be birth; i.e. children of non-citizens.

The unfortunate part here is that, through courts failing to properly interpret a law and Congress failing to address the supposed gap in the writing, we have a situation which allows illegal activity to go on daily.

Mr. Dufresne would have you believe that the 14th Amendment was written to establish ‘citizenship by birth’, but this is a lie; every evidence shows that this was never the intention.

It is apparent that the entire 14th Amendment is perfect, but that the interpretation provided in the first sentence is flawed due to the misinterpretation by people such as Mr. Dufresne.

“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...”, supposed to clarify the previous “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”, was to ensure that the children of former slaves were to be protected, as citizenship for all former slaves was to be conferred. It was not meant to say that a child born on US soil to a couple from France or China on holiday was to be provided a US passport. As far back as 1873, it has been established that children of foreign nationals were not to be awarded citizenship if neither parent were a US citizen.

Mr. Dufresne would have us believe that anyone can get citizenship by birth - that is simply not accurate.

Mr. Dufresne would have people believe that Judge Barrett is unworthy to sit on the Supreme Court due to what? A difference in opinion on a clause in the 14th Amendment?

Try again Sir and pick a better reason for denying the nominee a hearing, as this one is a nonstarter.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.