Court should settle controversies

I AM TRYING TO wrap my brain around Cal Thomas’ column, ABQ Journal, Nov. 7. Thomas is making the argument that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment should be read in terms of original intent and is detrimental to controlling illegal immigration, which did not exist in 1868. He says therefore the birthright clause is outdated and should be changed. Thomas has now embraced the liberal belief that the Constitution is a living document that can be changed to meet new needs.

The usual argument that commentators and judges make is to say that the Constitution foresaw the unknown distant future and someone need only contrive a reason to make the Constitution applicable to anything in modern America. And so we have unlimited political donations from anonymous sources and the selling of violent video games to 14-year-olds defined as protected free speech, and the right to carry assault weapons to be protected by an amendment guaranteeing state militias. And there is Roe v. Wade. These rulings have become major political wedge issues. The Supreme Court should settle controversies, not create them.

Birthright citizenship may become a wedge issue, too. If we start complicating the definition of a natural-born citizen, then the door is open to ways to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen. That is a scary thought. ROCK TOPE Albuquerque