News Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[Cyrus]

Congressmen Lindsey Graham is trying to modify the 14th Amendment so as to not include children born of illegal parents in this country. Sounds like a good, reasonable idea to me. We don't reward illegal behavior.

 

[cristo]

We don't reward illegal behavior.

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

 

[Cyrus]

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

Why should it get benefits due to the illegality of its parents actions? This is a classic example of scamming the system through a loop-hole.

 

[Evo]

Congressmen Lindsey Graham is trying to modify the 14th Amendment so as to not include children born of illegal parents in this country. Sounds like a good, reasonable idea to me. We don't reward illegal behavior.

I have no problem with the offspring of legal immigrants that do not yet have citizenship being automatically made legal citizens, but never the offspring of illegals. Doesn't that reward people for breaking the law?

I don't see the child as being punished, the child still has the citizenship of it's natural parents.

 

[cristo]

Why should it get benefits due to the illegality of its parents actions? This is a classic example of scamming the system through a loop-hole.

That's not really answered my question. Ok, here's another question: who do you think will ultimately be punished by refusing such a child citizenship? Do you think it's the parents who made the conscious decision to enter the country illegally who will be worse off, or the child who grows up stateless in a country s/he feels outcast in?

This has nothing to do with scamming the system, but more to do with human rights. I usually don't buy the whole "human rights" argument, but in this case we are talking about an innocent child. Of course, perhaps it's not too surprising to hear this argument being brought since we all know there are only two countries in the world that don't support the rights of the child...

 

[Evo]

Cristo, isn't that akin to saying that if you are born Mexican that you are born a substandard person? That a child of Mexican nationals remains a Mexican national is not a bad thing.

And yes, if you look up my earlier postions on illegal immigrants, I have made a 180 degree change. We simply cannot save the world anymore. I'm not against legal immigration, just illegals. We can no longer assimilate them. We can't provide jobs, healthcare, housing, or financial security for our legal citizens.

Instead of people criticising the US for saying we can't do this anymore, the anger should be directed at the government of Mexico for their abuse of their lower class citizens.

I'd like to see a trade system, for every hard working Mexican that wishes to work in the US, we get to send an equal number of our white trash to them.

 

[Cyrus]

That's not really answered my question. Ok, here's another question: who do you think will ultimately be punished by refusing such a child citizenship? Do you think it's the parents who made the conscious decision to enter the country illegally who will be worse off, or the child who grows up stateless in a country s/he feels outcast in?

Where the child grows up is not my problem. Let's look at the alternative, is the child going to grow up in America by itself, since his or her parents are not able to stay here legally? This is not even a remotely reasonable solution.

This has nothing to do with scamming the system, but more to do with human rights. I usually don't buy the whole "human rights" argument, but in this case we are talking about an innocent child. Of course, perhaps it's not too surprising to hear this argument being brought since we all know there are only two countries in the world that don't support the rights of the child...

Being a US citizen is not a human right. So what if it's an innocent child, that excuses nothing. The child is free to assume the citizenship of its parents, grow up in said country, and apply for immigration review to the United States like any other person.

 

[drankin]

But the child hasn't done anything illegal. Why should it be punished?

How is the child being punished?

 

[cristo]

Cristo, isn't that akin to saying that if you are born Mexican that you are born a substandard person? That a child of Mexican nationals remains a Mexican national is not a bad thing.

Of course it's not saying that any other nationality is substandard to that of the US (note I didn't say anything about Mexicans!)

You are punishing the child in the sense that you are tarring it with the brush of being a criminal before it has even had the chance to breathe. Furthermore, by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights). It's the child that is more likely to die because their parents are scared of being reported and deported when turning up at a hospital; the child who is going to grow up without an education and end up flipping burgers for a cash in hand, no questions asked wage.

Maybe we have different morals, or different opinions on issues like this (and that's fine.. we are, after all, from different sides of the pond), but I'm strongly of the belief that children should be given the best opportunity in life, regardless of whatever mistakes their parents have made. If granting them citizenship will help that, then I really don't see a problem.

 

[Evo]

Of course it's not saying that any other nationality is substandard to that of the US (note I didn't say anything about Mexicans!)

You are punishing the child in the sense that you are tarring it with the brush of being a criminal before it has even had the chance to breathe. Furthermore, by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights). It's the child that is more likely to die because their parents are scared of being reported and deported when turning up at a hospital; the child who is going to grow up without an education and end up flipping burgers for a cash in hand, no questions asked wage.

Maybe we have different morals, or different opinions on issues like this (and that's fine.. we are, after all, from different sides of the pond), but I'm strongly of the belief that children should be given the best opportunity in life, regardless of whatever mistakes their parents have made. If granting them citizenship will help that, then I really don't see a problem.

I fully understand your POV. It used to be mine. As a Mexican national, the kid will still be able to get a free ride on our system, up to a point. What is needed is to put a stop to the incentive for illegals to cross the border. Sadly, we have to.

 

[rootX]

Of course it's not saying that any other nationality is substandard to that of the US (note I didn't say anything about Mexicans!)

You are punishing the child in the sense that you are tarring it with the brush of being a criminal before it has even had the chance to breathe. Furthermore, by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights). It's the child that is more likely to die because their parents are scared of being reported and deported when turning up at a hospital; the child who is going to grow up without an education and end up flipping burgers for a cash in hand, no questions asked wage.

Maybe we have different morals, or different opinions on issues like this (and that's fine.. we are, after all, from different sides of the pond), but I'm strongly of the belief that children should be given the best opportunity in life, regardless of whatever mistakes their parents have made. If granting them citizenship will help that, then I really don't see a problem.

US itself has lots of children who need better enviornment.

Statiscally I believe legal American Mexicians are behind in getting good education or earning good salaries in America (I will get a link for this). Leaving illegal parent child in America wouldn't get him good life.

 

[cristo]

What is needed is to put a stop to the incentive for illegals to cross the border.

There is no real way to stop that though. The Mexican society seems to consist of moderately-very wealthy and extremely poor. The first class are likely to be able to earn a decent wage staying in Mexico, but for the second class, the obvious answer is to cross the border, get a cash in hand job, and earn lots of money to send back home (or perhaps take their family and live off the state). I don't know too much about this, but I wouldn't think it was as clear cut a case as claiming that all or even most illegal immigrants want to live off the state-- lots just want to work!

 

[Cyrus]

Furthermore, by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights).

Yes, that's precisely what I'm doing. I do not want to pay for health care and education for children that are effectively smuggled into the country illegally, using my hard earned dollar. There are plenty of legal Americans and government programs that need that don't need this money cyphened off.

It's the child that is more likely to die because their parents are scared of being reported and deported when turning up at a hospital; the child who is going to grow up without an education and end up flipping burgers for a cash in hand, no questions asked wage.

Irrelevant.

Maybe we have different morals, or different opinions on issues like this (and that's fine.. we are, after all, from different sides of the pond), but I'm strongly of the belief that children should be given the best opportunity in life, regardless of whatever mistakes their parents have made. If granting them citizenship will help that, then I really don't see a problem.

Fine, then you pick up the bill for these people in your taxes, not mine.

 

[Cyrus]

There is no real way to stop that though.

Yeah, there is - change the law.

The Mexican society seems to consist of moderately-very wealthy and extremely poor. The first class are likely to be able to earn a decent wage staying in Mexico, but for the second class, the obvious answer is to cross the border, get a cash in hand job, and earn lots of money to send back home (or perhaps take their family and live off the state). I don't know too much about this, but I wouldn't think it was as clear cut a case as claiming that all or even most illegal immigrants want to live off the state-- lots just want to work!

...<shrug> that's Mexico's problem. Not only are they here illegally, they are sending money out of the country! It doesn't matter if they want to work - there are plenty of people who want to come here legally and work. This is an excuse, not an answer.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wouldn't legal immigration allow them to work and have children without fear of deportation?

If you want to live here so badly, do it legally.

 

[hamster143]

You are punishing the child in the sense that you are tarring it with the brush of being a criminal before it has even had the chance to breathe. Furthermore, by not allowing the child citizenship, you are denying the child things like healthcare or education (both of which I appreciate some of you do not class as human rights).

Not at all. I'm simply not affording the child any additional rights that he wouldn't have had anyway if his parents didn't break the law. If the child is punished at all, he is really punished by his parents who insist on raising him in a foreign country where he has no legal right to work or even stay, even though he could grow up just fine in his parents' home village in Mexico or Guatemala, just like millions of other kids.

By the way, there was a Supreme Court decision that illegals can't be denied healthcare or K-12 just because of their status.

Wouldn't legal immigration allow them to work and have children without fear of deportation?

If you want to live here so badly, do it legally.

There's no legal pathway for Mexicans to immigrate here, except through marriage and through H1 status (and, for that, IIRC, they need at least a master's degree from a Mexican university, so that automatically rules out 85% of the population).

 

[cristo]

...<shrug> that's Mexico's problem.

I think that sentiment nicely sums up the whole situation, to be honest!

 

[cristo]

If you want to live here so badly, do it legally.

Are you living in a different reality? Do you know how difficult it is for anyone to migrate to the US these days, let alone a Mexican who likely has a comparatively low level of education and earning power?

 

[Evo]

Cristo, on one hand, I feel so bad for the Mexican's that are willing to work their butts off to have a better life, which is why I always supported them. But reality has finally sunk in. The old US, the American dream, you work hard and be a good worker and you'll have a job for life and a retirement are now just old dreams of a bygone era. Unfortunately the dream went away before the country could adapt.

 

[Cyrus]

I think that sentiment nicely sums up the whole situation, to be honest!

Not really, because thanks to the Mexican government and its corruption, now it's my problem too.

 

[Cyrus]

Are you living in a different reality? Do you know how difficult it is for anyone to migrate to the US these days, let alone a Mexican who likely has a comparatively low level of education and earning power?

Exactly, therefore, we should just let them bypass the system and screw everyone else over. So, why exactly would I want to let in uneducated low earning power immigrants, over highly educated high earning ones?

 

[Evo]

Are you living in a different reality? Do you know how difficult it is for anyone to migrate to the US these days, let alone a Mexican who likely has a comparatively low level of education and earning power?

Legal immigration has been virtualy cut off to many countries that have exceeded their quota. I don't think a lot of people realize that you can't just apply for a visa. My ex-fiance was from Italy, a country that had little chance of getting a visa without a sponsor, even as a software engineer. He eventually won a green card in the lottery.

It's still no excuse for breaking the law.

 

[Char. Limit]

Exactly, therefore, we should just let them bypass the system and screw everyone else over. So, why exactly would I want to let in uneducated low earning power immigrants, over highly educated high earning ones?

My thoughts exactly. It may be difficult, but apparently it's worth it for the, I believe, about a million people who immigrate legally every year. That stat is from the USCIS website, but I can't get a link. Such happens on a Wii...

damn my computer for breaking, I can't post links for my stats.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think there is one aspect of this debate that should be less debatable than others - the question of who is punishing the child.

If the US Govt passes a bill today that voids citizenship for children already in the US (born of illegally immigrated parents), then it is the US that punishes the children. I can't imagine Graham would try something like that, but not having read the bill, can't say for sure. If the US passes a law that applies only to future children of illegal immigrants, then it is the parents that punish the child by choosing to giving birth to it in a country where it will not be a legal citizen.

EDIT: Missed hamster's post, which makes essentially the same argument.

 

[cristo]

Cristo, on one hand, I feel so bad for the Mexican's that are willing to work their butts off to have a better life, which is why I always supported them. But reality has finally sunk in. The old US, the American dream, you work hard and be a good worker and you'll have a job for life and a retirement are now just old dreams of a bygone era. Unfortunately the dream went away before the country could adapt.

This is the thing that is so difficult to understand from the outside. On the one hand, you hear such things as "all men created equal", and the American dream that essentially rewards someone for wanting to work, but on the other hand you have the small clause that all this really only applies to those who managed to enter the country before 1970 (or whenever the big immigration squeeze was). Anyone who wants to live the "American dream" now should just give up.

So, why exactly would I want to let in uneducated low earning power immigrants, over highly educated high earning ones?

I'm not saying you should pick uneducated people to allow in legally. I was merely pointing out that Char. Limit's post suggesting that these people apply to get into the country legally was nonsense.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not saying you should pick uneducated people to allow in legally. I was merely pointing out that Char. Limit's post suggesting that these people apply to get into the country legally was nonsense.

I think you misread him, because he never said any such thing. He said that if they want to come here, they should apply legally.

This is the thing that is so difficult to understand from the outside. On the one hand, you hear such things as "all men created equal", and the American dream that essentially rewards someone for wanting to work, but on the other hand you have the small clause that all this really only applies to those who managed to enter the country before 1970 (or whenever the big immigration squeeze was). Anyone who wants to live the "American dream" now should just give up.

This is simply a matter of you misunderstanding what that statement means. All men created equal, applies to citizens of the United States.

 

[Cyrus]

I think there is one aspect of this debate that should be less debatable than others - the question of who is punishing the child.

If the US Govt passes a bill today that voids citizenship for children already in the US (born of illegally immigrated parents), then it is the US that punishes the children. I can't imagine Graham would try something like that, but not having read the bill, can't say for sure. If the US passes a law that applies only to future children of illegal immigrants, then it is the parents that punish the child by choosing to giving birth to it in a country where it will not be a legal citizen.

EDIT: Missed hamster's post, which makes essentially the same argument.

That is an expo-facto law, and unconstitutional. Graham is a former a JAG lawyer now turned Senator, he wouldn't be that stupid.

 

[hamster143]

If the US Govt passes a bill today that voids citizenship for children already in the US (born of illegally immigrated parents), then it is the US that punishes the children.

BTW, I don't think it's possible. The legislative branch cannot retroactively strip citizenship from existing children, there are only a few limited circumstances that allow denaturalization. They can only be stripped of citizenship retroactively by the Supreme Court if it determines that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to cover children of illegals. In which case, you can't really say that they are being punished by anyone.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is the thing that is so difficult to understand from the outside. On the one hand, you hear such things as "all men created equal", and the American dream that essentially rewards someone for wanting to work, but on the other hand you have the small clause that all this really only applies to those who managed to enter the country before 1970 (or whenever the big immigration squeeze was). Anyone who wants to live the "American dream" now should just give up.

No, I think it's not unreasonable to argue that anyone who wants to live the American dream should do so legally. You are making a case for lowering immigration standards to make it possible for anyone to live the American dream (and I think that's an unreasonable demand to make). But that's a different argument from one demanding the US provide incentives to those that wish to enter illegally.

I'm not saying you should pick uneducated people to allow in legally.

I'm confused by what you're saying over these two paragraphs - they appear to contradict each other. Would you prefer that uneducated people be given free access to enter and remain in the country illegally?

 

[hamster143]

This is the thing that is so difficult to understand from the outside. On the one hand, you hear such things as "all men created equal", and the American dream that essentially rewards someone for wanting to work, but on the other hand you have the small clause that all this really only applies to those who managed to enter the country before 1970 (or whenever the big immigration squeeze was). Anyone who wants to live the "American dream" now should just give up.

It is the unfortunate reality that this country is simply not big enough to accommodate everyone who wants to live the "American dream" here. I recall an estimate that, just in Mexico, there are somewhere around 20 million people who want to live in the United States. That's one fifth of the country. Then there's Latin America, there's China, India ... if we let everyone immigrate without any quotas or restrictions, we'll easily end up with a billion people, most of them poor, unskilled, and uneducated, and we don't have room or resources for everyone. First quotas on immigration were introduced in this country in late 19th century, right around the time when we started running out of space for new arrivals.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is an expo-facto law, and unconstitutional.

I had thought so too, until somewhat recently, when I learned that there are some cases when you can make laws that come into effect retro-actively¹. In any case, I was making this point more for the purpose of elucidating the logic (behind where the blame lies) than because I thought it was a serious possibility.

1. See, for example: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/oil_spill_liability_could_rise.html

BTW, I don't think it's possible. The legislative branch cannot retroactively strip citizenship from existing children, there are only a few limited circumstances that allow denaturalization. They can only be stripped of citizenship retroactively by the Supreme Court if it determines that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to cover children of illegals. In which case, you can't really say that they are being punished by anyone.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[cristo]

This is simply a matter of you misunderstanding what that statement means. All men created equal, applies to citizens of the United States.

I'm not sure that's true. This was clearly a statement of the nonacceptance of the king's reign over the colonies. That is, all men are created equal in the sense that a monarch has no right to reign over a people without their say-so. I don't think this specifies that the founding fathers only believed that the (soon to be) American people were all created equal, but rather that this applied to the people of the world in general.

I'm confused by what you're saying over these two paragraphs - they appear to contradict each other.

I'm also confused by now- it's not much fun taking one side of a debate against 15 or so people!

I guess my main point of that post you quote is twofold. Firstly, the American dream as seen from the outside is somewhat hypocritical, since while people are encouraged to work and better themselves, they are not really given the chance to. But secondly, I was merely trying to make the point that your typical Mexican will have no chance of legally getting into the US. Now, I don't see the citizenship through birth thing as being a major incentive to get in illegally-- the incentive is the fact that Mexicans can get into the country and work. But this is not so much an incentive from the US side as it is a non-incentive from the Mexican side. Surely something has to be pretty bad to give up your freedom and live in a country illegally. I don't see that helping the children of such people is such a bad thing.


Oh, and I just checked UK immigration law: apparently children of illegals over here are not granted citizenship!

 

[Jack21222]

If the US passes a law that applies only to future children of illegal immigrants, then it is the parents that punish the child by choosing to giving birth to it in a country where it will not be a legal citizen.

The US federal government cannot pass such a law. It would have to go through as a constitutional amendment, which is a significantly larger undertaking. And I doubt it would pass.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not sure that's true. This was clearly a statement of the nonacceptance of the king's reign over the colonies. That is, all men are created equal in the sense that a monarch has no right to reign over a people without their say-so. I don't think this specifies that the founding fathers only believed that the (soon to be) American people were all created equal, but rather that this applied to the people of the world in general.

The constitution does not apply to the people of the world in general, it is a legal document by and for the American people. It any event, it doesn't really matter because that statement does not support your argument.

 

[waht]

If I was Mexican these days I'd want to get the hell out of the country. Mexico is unstable, and is dominated by well financed mafias and cartels that have tentacles branching out to every level of society. The average citizen Jose doesn't much options there.

 

[cristo]

The constitution does not apply to the people of the world in general, it is a legal document by and for the American people.

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

 

[Evo]

If I was Mexican these days I'd want to get the hell out of the country. Mexico is unstable, and dominated by well financed mafias and cartels that have tentacles branching out to every level of society. The average citizen Jose doesn't much options there.

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

 

[Char. Limit]

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

Probably they're too mad at us for trying to enforce our just laws on immigration.

 

[Cyrus]

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

Whoops, sorry about that. Thought you were talking about the constitution. Shame on me for mixing the two! Note, the DOE has no bearing here.

You are correct that that is about all people, not just Americans. I made that statement because I was basing it on being in the constitution, which would change things.

 

[lisab]

The US federal government cannot pass such a law. It would have to go through as a constitutional amendment, which is a significantly larger undertaking. And I doubt it would pass.

That's an understatement, haha. The process for amending the constitution is something like:

The bill has to be passed by both the Senate and the House, by two-thirds in each. Then it goes to the states, and it has to pass three-fourths of them. (I think there's another way, a Constitutional convention, but it's never been done afaik.)

I don't think there's a time limit, so you can imagine it would be a loooooong process.

For this reason, it's a non-issue; I group it in with the proposal to outlaw flag burning.

 

[Evo]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities with little in ways of communication, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thieves.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

 

[cristo]

Shame on me for mixing the two!

Shame, indeed. That may be cause for a retrospective citizenship removal. Please, leave your passport at the border on your way down to Mexico

 

[cristo]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thiefs.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

That would be my go-to example, but for the want of not starting a gun debate!

 

[Cyrus]

Shame, indeed. That may be cause for a retrospective citizenship removal. Please, leave your passport at the border on your way down to Mexico

I am senor bandito!

 

[waht]

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

Because Mexico isn't within the world's sphere of influence, but on the other hand, violation of human rights tends to permeate into most people's hearts.

I wonder why now the 14th amendment is challenged? Nobody cared about it when relatively few people sent a Trojan horse across the border, but on mass scales they want it revised or repealed?

The fact of the matter is the US citizens are just looking for something to do because the federal government has done little to fix the borders, and has demonstrated immense spinelessness in the matter.

Repeal 14th amendment, and illegal immigrants will still come.

 

[hamster143]

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

You're right, it is a very general statement. Nowhere in the declaration of independence does it say that all people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" specifically within the borders of the United States. It declares that those people should be able to do that in their own countries (in this case, Mexico). And, if the government of Mexico is destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Evo]

Because Mexico isn't within the world's sphere of influence, but on the other hand, violation of human rights tends to permeate into most people's hearts.

I wonder why now the 14th amendment is challenged? Nobody cared about it when relatively few people sent a Trojan horse across the border, but on mass scales they want it revised or repealed?

The fact of the matter is the US citizens are just looking for something to do because the federal government has done little to fix the borders, and has demonstrated immense spinelessness in the matter.

Repeal 14th amendment, and illegal immigrants will still come.

Of course the massive scale it is being abused is the reason to repeal it. I think it will be significant in curtailing illegals. If they know they cannot get any foothold here, there will be less to entice them, it's not a cure, but it's a start. Family is very important to them, if they know that they cannot get a legal family started here, there won't be as much of a compelling reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities with little in ways of communication, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thieves.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

Then don't make bogus arguments to which others are not allowed to respond. And it is bogus.

I personally cling to the Constitution to protect me from people who don't respect it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is all moot anyway. It is just more Republican bluster for headlines. It will go nowhere. Even today the Republicans were softening their language. Now it's about the Chinese.

 

[Jack21222]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era.

Legally, I don't think we have a choice. If we can just start ignoring certain parts of the constitution because it's "outdated," there's no point in having a constitution whatsoever. Granted, we've already started doing that, but at least we're keeping up the veneer of "following the constitution," even if it means stretching the commerce clause like a cheap bungee cord. If we actually took the next step and got rid of any pretense of following the constitution, I think there'd be a major backlash.

For example, if the Supreme Court said something like "Even though the Constitution explicitly says xyz, we're deciding to ignore that and come up with our own ruling of abc," you might find some people exercising their second amendment rights the old fashioned way.