And no, we should not be amending our most important founding document.So we shouldn’t be amending the Constitution, and therefore should have no right to free speech (Amendment No. 1), no right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (No. 4), wouldn’t have banned the sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors (Numero XVIII), would still be denying women the right to vote (19), wouldn’t have repealed the prohibition on the sale and transport of intoxicating liquors (XXI) and might still be requiring blacks in the South to pay to vote (the 24th)?
We didn’t always pay attention in school, but we believe we were taught that the Constitution is a living document subject to amendment. This non-answer from Noriega---and we’ll acknowledge the possibility that the interview was edited for brevity, although his reply hardly needs further context---makes the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee sound … not too bright.
Surely Noriega knows that the section of the Constitution that is assumed to bestow citizenship on the spawn of any border-jumping mamacita from Zacatecas who can make her way to a public hospital was not part of the original “founding document” but was added as an amendment (XIV) by the Reconstruction-era Congress specifically to guarantee citizenship and its attendant rights to recently freed African-American slaves. No one back then envisioned massive illegal immigration, or even the concept of illegal immigration---or a public-hospital maternity ward, for that matter.
He does know that, right?