Dee Perez-Scott -- Unbalanced

In another of her incredible displays of obtuseness and perversity, Dee Perez-Scott characterized as a “TEA Party Conspiracy” the reading of the Constitution in which both parties participated on the floor of the House of Representatives. She went on to suggest that this reading meant that those involved were sending the message that they would abide by only the Amendments they like. This statement is so absurd that it hardly warrants comment. Yet, this nonsense cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.
The genesis of her distortions seems to be her inability to differentiate between abiding by the Constitution and seeking to change it or its interpretation. This is indeed strange since she knows full well that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, presumably while the majority of the people were abiding by its original provisions. This was accomplished by the Congress with the concurrence of three-fourths of the States in accordance with the requirements laid out in the Constitution. In spite of these facts, Dee equates any new desire to amend or reinterpret the Constitution or any of the 27 Amendments to be equivalent to an intention to no longer abide by some or all of their provisions.
Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; and to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.

Dee went on to say, “And I did NOT even mention the 14th Amendment! They read the Constitution on the floor DEMANDING everyone ABIDE by the Constitution -- This while racist/extremist Rep Steve King proposes to Change the 14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship!” But yet she just did. A more rational person would have seen this as an opportunity to present a reasoned argument against any change in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Instead she resorted to name-calling and personal attacks on a duly-elected representative of the people of Rep. King’s district.

Given the dramatic change in circumstances in the U.S. since the 14th Amendment was approved and since the seminal case of Wong Kim Ark was decided, noting that the latter did not address the question of the children of illegal aliens and tourists, it is entirely reasonable to present those circumstances for review by the Supreme Court. Given the flood of illegal aliens into the U.S., some of whom would do us grave harm,and the drive-by babies of tourists, the time has arrived for an appropriate review of the applicability of the 14th Amendment to the children of illegal aliens and tourists.
No tirades of the unbalanced should deter the Congress from allowing the Court to perform this review.