dave jamieson. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it is monday, august 24, 2015. we begin today on "washington journal" discussing the american constitution, amended 20 times. all of the leading presidential candidates have one or more proposals for how to change the constitution. the latest proposal from some republicans would resend birthright -- would rescind tothright to immigrants -- children of immigrants. we are asking viewers whether

they think it is a good idea idea to amendd the constitution and, if so, why. republicans, (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. independents, (202)748-8002. you can catch up with us on facebook, twitter, or e-mail. a very good monday morning to you. written in 1787, ratified in 1788, in operation since 1789, the united states constitution is our longest surviving document of government. how would you amend it? the phone numbers are on the screen. the subject was brought up by a recent "national journal" story. all of the contenders want to

change the constitution. the mere suggestion of altering america's bedrock law can make a splash in a crowded 2016 field. as long as candidates vie for , suggestions for changing the constitution may continue to materialize. this issue of if you are un-american citizen born -- are an american citizen if you are born on u.s. soil. endld trump called for an to birthright citizenship. it has not stopped other 2016 republicans for calling to an anndment -- for calling for amendment. there was an interview on "face the nation" with senator ted cruz. here is what he had to say. [video clip] should, asi think we

a policy matter, end birthright citizenship. i've said so in writing. there is a second question, how does one do it? constitutional scholars differ in terms of the way it can be effectively done. some argue congress could pass a law defining what the words in the 14th amendment "subject to the jurisdiction" mean. others argue, no, it could not be done by statute. it must be done by constitutional amendment. we should pursue whichever one is effective. but as a policy matter, we should change the law. when i also said in that interview, and i think this is important, is we are facing crisis with illegal immigration, a law enforcement crisis, a national security crisis. any change in birthright citizenship will take many years. [end video clip]

host: several other candidates also responding to this issue of changing the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. side of theratic aisle, the leading constitutional amendment proposal that is out there is overturning the citizens united supreme court decision. your is bernie sanders' -- here entialnie sanders' presid campaign website. "it's time for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united." "what we need now is a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united." of course, hillary clinton has also expressed her openness to the idea of a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. here is a story from msnbc. i would consider it from late last month. we are asking our viewers, how would you change the united states constitution?

do you think it should be changed? if so, why? eric on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to respond to senator cruz. he is an ankle biter. his father was born in cuba. we need to see senator cruz's mother's birth certificate. he was born in canada under socialized law. now onto to other issues. the constitution was a flawed document from the very beginning because, the simple fact is, it was designed as a document of white supremacy, for the white, caucasian male. if you look at the dred scott decision, there is no right that a white man has over a black man. this is what you see all this from. host: how would you change that

document today? is its will of flawed document -- is it still a flawed document? caller: it is. thes a document that wrote african-american people a check with insufficient funds, dr. k ing said. we still see where the police forces, after reconstruction and all this, designed under the government -- america should have the flag "don't tread on me no more." host: specifically, what would you change in the constitution? what amendment would you propose? martin o'malley is one of the candidates on the democratic side of the aisle. he is worried about protecting the right to vote, that the right to vote in this country is ther assault, a story from constitution center blog noting that, in early august, he said he wants a constitutional

amendment to protect every citizen's right to vote. is that something you could get behind? caller: no. the simple fact is the right to vote has not helped the african-american. the democratic party and the republican party -- everything remains the same. put clinton is the one who these criminal -- these criminal laws into effect. when chuck schumer, charlie weber, these democrats -- bipartisan system since reagan. they get together and use african-american people. thank you. host: that is eric in georgia this morning. on twitter, "no amendments, please. newed a totally constitution to deal with the emerging realities in the last two centuries!"

we are asking what specific amendments you would get behind or propose to the constitution. tom is up next on the line for republicans. caller: i feel they should just, maybe, like, tweak the 14th amendment. you could leave it "if you are born here," b you haveut -- but you have to catch the cheaters. you can't have someone who is expecting a child and comes here for just a few months to have the child born here. if someone is here on a green card or visa and they are working and they feel they are going to live here for a while, maybe start a life here, and they happen to have a child here, fine. but we have a lot of people who are cheating, who are just coming over to have the child, so the child can be american-born, then go back. host: talking about the debate

over the 14th amendment. section one of the 14th amendment of the constitution reading, "all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof our citizens of the united states and of the state where they reside." this idea of birthright citizenship on the sunday shows. yesterday, after donald trump brought this up last week, here is governor chris christie on " face the nation" when he was asked his position. [video clip] christie: it is in the constitution. i don't think we should be looking to change it. when it comes immigration reform, i would be willing to look at anything. it is in the constitution. let's talk about the things we can fix simply without having to amend the constitution where we need 2/3 of the congress and 38 states to agree. clip]ideo

host: this is only the latest debate over a possible constitutional amendment that has been happening in the republican party. here is a recent story from "the rickstreet journal" about santorum calling for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. those statements coming after that supreme court case earlier this year that allows gay marriage across this country. a more recent story from lindsey graham from "the washington embracing theat idea of constitutional amendments to marriage will hurt republicans in 2016. that headline from june 28 in "the washington post." this debate happening over the past couple months, different amendments to the constitution that have been proposed. we want to hear your thoughts, should any amendments the proposed -- amendments to b proposed -- amendments be prop osed?

james, go ahead. mr. trump said he wants to tweak the constitution to get the latinos out. well, after that happens, i want to know when is mr. walker going to want to tweak the constitution. i was looking at a program last night. do you know how we have to go and look-- go far back in all these books to find out who owns you, when you were sold like an animal, and you could get your slaves back? host: do you want to hear from governor scott walker on this? he was on "this week" yesterday. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] we need to enforce the laws, including those in the constitution. politicianse

committed to securing the border and enforcing the laws. that means e-verify.make sure every employer makes sure that the people who work for them are legal to work in this country. george: you are not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th amendment. gov any discussion that goes. walker: -- gov. walker: any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing the laws -- [end video clip] host: and this debate happening on our twitter and facebook pages this morning. oning viewers their views changing the united states constitution. our facebook pages -- page facebook.com/cspan.

"no, it should not be changed. the constitution of the united states is to keep dictators like obama under control. congress needs to their jobs and hold people accountable to not follow the law of the land." "i do not think the constitution should be changed." even give us a call. republicans, (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. independents, (202)748-8002. on the independent line, randall from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't get much time with a national audience. i don't think the spirit of the law should be questioned. thatwoman in juarez knows

she can come to a hospital in el aisle to down in the have her baby to give that baby a better opportunity, i'm not going to blame that mother. at the same time, i don't think every issue needs to be a firing squad issue. america is not a war zone. i'm tired of politicians, television, advertising, everything being like we are in a militarized zone. we are more of a hospital's own than -- hospital zone than a military zone. i think we can go back to those laws, the constitution -- there are a lot of things that came out of the spirit of the constitution, the spirit of the declaration of independence that time maybe outran. butnot going to start that, if you want to go across the if your border, even

mom did have you in the hallway of the el paso hospital, you are first in line for citizenship. host: do you think we are too quick in this country to jump on a constitutional amendment fix? we talked about birthright citizenship and citizens united. caller: it's gotten so bad that i think we are ready to get out there and throw the knockout punch. host: the knockout punch is who? caller: trump spouts off. the republicans are running scared. he is saying brash things. you go with a guy like bernie sanders. he is on economics. that's where dignity has been lost. if you don't take care of the little man and a little woman -- woman, you are not

going to make a better country. you've got to face social security. that's ours. nixon started taking that money out of us in 1969 and putting it in the general sharing revenue fund. you've got to give the common person, the common family the right to dignity. host: that is randall in texas. we are talking with our viewers on how they would change the united states constitution. should it be changed? why or why not? other proposed amendments that have come up during the 2016 cycle already -- amendment to balance america's budget. nearly every meeting 2016 republican contender has backed, at one time or other, an amendment for balancing the budget. another one is taking aim at the affordable, expressing opposition to president obama's signature health care law. marco rubio introduced an

amendment in 2013 that would invalidate the law's controversial "individual mandate." we will talk about some of those and other ways that candidates are proposing changing the constitution. up next, tennessee, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. in the first 15 years of the united states, the constitution was amended 15 times. when they started, they realized they needed to add the bill of rights. they added 11 and 12 very quickly. after the civil war, we added three more. then we added three or four more. it's not an uncommon thing. today, we just say that it is too hard to do because they don't want to do it. it was put in the constitution in the fifth article that the way to change the constitution is to amend it. to did not make it -- they did

not make it hard. -- approve conscience changing the constitution on several issues. the balanced budget amendment sounds reasonable. we have to do it in our homes. many states have to do that as well. also, the issue now of having children -- parents come for the express purpose of making their children citizens and not to be part of the united states. we see this being done by several nationalities in different places in this country, and that's not the way it was intended. if we read the 14th amendment, most of the authors of that amendment said it was to make sure that former slaves were now citizens of the united states and could not be deprived of their rights. we need to look at everything. and lastly, i will say, look at the 27th amendment. what does it do? it says every two years, congressman could -- congressmen

could get a pay raise. that was really important, but somehow it got passed. host: and at a time when things seem so split along party lines and it is hard to get candidates or members of congress on both sides of the aisle together on anything, do you think we can move a constitutional amendment on some of those issues you of thep and get 2/3 senate and house to agree on it before then sending it to the states for ratification? caller: i don't think it ever has been easy to get these amendments. they had to write the "federalist papers" to get the first 10. i'm sure there was opposition to every one of them, strong opposition. i'm sure that, if we really studied this to a great deal, we would see that there has been strong opposition to nearly every one of them.

so, thank you very much. host: we appreciate it. talking about the 27th amendment, the last amendment in 1992, the last time the constitution was amended, more than 200 years after it was proposed as part of the original bill of rights. the amendment prohibited members of congress from receiving an increase of salary until after the next election had been held. that was in 1992. before that, the 26th amendment, 1971. up next, maryland, the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the american public needs to understand one thing, that changing the constitution is not the correct -- the priority for us. priority is justice, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. aree politicians and others really distracting us from the

core issues that divide us because of the injustices and economy -- the crumbling of our and where we stand in the united states and to the world and how we can be a respectable nation. this is a distraction. no document is perfect. but my opinion is that a document that has lasted for centuries should not be the most priority thing to be changed. i think these are very much a distraction and the american public needs to understand the issue is social justice, because these economic inequalities are what divide us. they make us less and less united. this is the issue that needs to be addressed. unfortunately, the media is picking up the talking points of the politicians and running with it and continuing to distract the american public.

sam writes in on twitter, "i don't want to see what they would do to it. make it worse. we can't trust them to do the right thing." you can continue calling in on the "washington journal" on this question of should the united states constitution be changed? why or why not? "jittery wall street starts the story. edge," the lead "u.s. stocks are starting there their -- are set for a gritty start following their worst week since june, 2011." a story in "the washington post" on international affairs,

senator harry reid's endorsement boosts the iran deal. said it isdemocrat the best way to curtail iran's military ambitions and he pledged to round up more support among his opponents. he publicly endorsed the plan. senator charles schumer of new york has come out against it. that story in "the washington post." one other story to point you towards after that friday press conference from former president jimmy carter about his health condition. the headline "big crowds show support at carter's first bible lessons since cancer update." he spent less than five minutes updating on his health, then began the lesson on love, faith,

and relationships. we want to hear your thoughts on this question we are asking -- should the united states constitution be changed? sander is up next on the line for democrats -- sandra is up next on the line for democrats. caller: i do think that the constitution should be changed. for several years now, i have voted democratic. right now, i'm feeling like i should be voting republican, because it seems as though we have forgotten -- america has forgotten about america. i want to say that, yes, immigration is a huge problem, because there are so many ways that a person who is not a et citizenship, and one of those ways is marrying someone. soldiers go off to different countries to serve their country, yet when they are over

there in these other countries, they marry and come back and their wives stay married to them for a year or so, and they now have entry into america. as far as -- host: you are saying soldiers should not be allowed to marry if they are on active duty? caller: i'm not saying i think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. they are going over as single soldiers, so you're paying for one person. when they marry when they are over there, you are paying for two persons. if they have children, you are paying for three persons to come back to the united states. host: you want this clarified in the 14th amendment on citizenship? caller: well, that is a way that the foreign citizens can come into the country.

and once they get into the auntry or have a child, love soldier in teh country, they, too, can stay in the country. host: is there an amendment you would propose? change orwould elaborate on the 14th amendment, which is already there. it's simple. it fits the times in the past. nowthe things that are occurring, the ways to come in, have changed. you hate to do it because, if you make one change, then, somewhere down the line, there is going to have to be another change and another change. but i think that explanation is the key to keeping things level. host: sandra in savannah,

georgia. roberto is calling from washington, d.c., on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am for changing the constitution and the reason is this -- do we, the united states, want tame the flaw of -- to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the u.s.? if the answer is yes, then we, as a country, must change the constitution and turn off one of the main magnets for people around the world to come into the united states. citizenshipgaining by virtue of being born in the united states, even from parents well-intentioned, for their

own family, for whatever economic reasons, whatever -- the reason is that they smuggled into the united states as tourists or something, extending their state, or coming -- their stay, or coming through the border, once they put their foot in the soil,nce they are on this it is enough for them to have a baby or to come with a baby already made in mexico or elsewhere and just give birth in the united states. so, the anchor, and that's why the term is proper, "anchor babies." forever theo stem

illegal immigration? people who are illegally here should not be welcome, will not be welcome. they must go back the way they came and then reenter the country legally. once this stand is taken firm, then people will say, well, there is no way we can make it and they will stop coming illegally. up next, oxford, massachusetts, the line for democrats. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. callervious color -- stole some of my thunder. it is kind of meaningless whether we change it. it's sort of like the bible. you can get two different people reading it and get a multitude of interpretations. whether they make an amendment or

we need common sense. we are still going to go on fighting, bickering, and arguing, no matter what is written down. we need common sense, in other words. like i said, he stole my thunder. host: before you go, do you think we are too quick to jump to a constitutional amendment to solve the problem in this country? i think we lost carl. we will go to sean in illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will answer your question. i think we are too quick. at this point, it is like a unicorn, it will not happen. polarizedvery c political climate. it is just not going to happen. and constitutional amendment is just not practical. talking about it, it is like a mythical dragon. we can talk about practical solutions. if people are afraid of these

tourism children, you make a disincentive. you impose tax liabilities, selective service -- their obligations you have as a u.s. citizen, it is not all fun and games. you make disincentives. congress would enact legislation that would create a reason to make you double think why you might come here. the 14th amendment, i think, is great. it was created to correct the dred scottdecision -- decision. wasinese citizen, who trying to come back in here, was denied. the thing that would terrify me about constitutional amendment is precision. the position of language. .- precision of language we depend on judges to interpret because congress cannot write

precise language. how will you overturn citizens united without infringing on free speech? independent expenditures, you have to realize, that is talking about politics. i have a cell phone, so i'm allowed to call you. that is unfair. other people don't have cell phones. that sting's that is clearly a stinks.l -- that that is clearly a financial difference. congress set themselves up so they always get a raise, unless they wrote to withhold the raise . they just reversed the situation to get around the amendment. it is still the law today. a vote whether they should withhold the cost of living increase. it is silly. it is a game. host: let me ask you about another amendment that has been proposed. it seems like it could be a

fairly short amendment. ,n amendment on term limits setting a specific number of years that a member can serve in the house or senate. caller: i'm not huge on the term limit. i have seen studies on states and the research coming out is that the effects of the term limits is not that different limit.e non-termina there is research out there, it just does not have a huge effect. it transfers power over to hire officials -- h igher party officials. host: john in chicago, illinois. we're getting your thoughts on this issue of changing the , of coursen coming up in the past week, because of the birthright citizenship eight. on our twitter feed -- i do not

have a problem with an amendment to better clarify natural born citizenship. in anopic also editorial. it says, of course, most americans take pride in the , and often age distinct blend, and often they have paid a price for that, but every prejudice has been worn down, not erased. the conviction that citizenship tried, the any infant born here is entitled to grow up here. that is from "the washington post." oklahoma, life or republicans. caller: good morning.

i might need to apologize. i cut into the middle of the program before i made my call. i guess you are asking about constitutional amendments for citizenship? host: any constitutional amendment. should the constitution be change, and if so, how would you do it? caller: i think there is a critical change to the structure of the republic with the passage of the 17th amendment. i believe that is the one, without having my constitution in front me, that makes senators elected by popular vote. that amendment changed us from the republic that was intended by the founders to a populous populist nation. it has had a tremendous impact on this country since its passage. host: you got your timing right. 17th amendment, 1913 when it was passed. caller: yes, people may not realize, that was a critical

change to the republic, set up by the founding fathers. basically, it took the powers that were supposed to be residual to the states and individuals, and place them in the hands of the federal government. change. very critical i would something repeal it -- simply repeal it. host: are there any other armaments that you oppose? caller: i think the 17th is the key log in the jam. it turned us to a populist nation. host: i appreciate the call. mark is up next in ohio, line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and for taking my call. of like either way on

your question this morning. we don't follow the constitution. what are you guys talking about? instance, it says in the constitution, property taxes -- i never be funded by will correct myself. funding of public schools shall never be incurred by property taxes. we do that in so many states. it is extortion. it is not capitalism. it is socialism. public school should not be paying for other people's kids. there are people who make more than 10 times what i do a year, and i have to pay for their kids to go to school? that is about as communistic as you can get. i wish we would get back to the constitution. what people are born

here from another country, and they are illegal, that obviously right. i think that is maybe a story issue. states have way too much power. we don't have big brother taking care of us at all. we need to get back to that and follow the constitution. host: sandy on twitter says that the constitution needs to be a cap ono put o federal taxes and balance the budget year late. you can follow along with us at @cspanwj. time for a few more of your calls, and also to point out more news happening around the country. there is a picture of spencer stone, and airmen in the air force, praise for stopping a man with an ak-47 on a train to

paris. the editorial board of "the wall street journal" also talking about this incident, and the actions of those three americans. they wrote that terrorism used to be celebrated in hollywood, though it rarely is in these cynical days, but it still america'smost of society. the heroes on the french drain showed the world the kind of men that america is still made of. phones,t back to the and get a few more of your calls in this segment. john is in annapolis, maryland, my for democrats. how would you change the constitution, if you could? caller: first i want to say, good morning and thank you for taking my call. the way i would change the constitution is i would impose an amendment to overturn

citizens united. i believe that is the central issue facing america right now. the fact that voting rights, equality, all of these issues cannot be solved unless you get money out of politics first. until the american people get their voice back and heard, nothing else can be changed. do you think is the leading issu voice on this issue? a couple of democrats talking about this -- hillary clinton and bernie sanders. caller: i believe both parties are talking about campaign finance reform. i believe the democrats are actually making it a priority policies, versus the republicans. i am undecided on to whom my democratic candidate would be,

but it is between hillary clinton and bernie sanders. host: here is the bernie sanders webpage, urging supporters to agn the petition for constitutional limit to overturn citizens united. let's go to joe and west virginia, life or republicans. caller: thank you. we are notl, actually talking about changing the constitution, but the 14th amendment. we should never do that constitution. if you go back and read about the founders, those were the most intelligent, thoughtful people, so far above what we have in this country anymore. i don't think we could improve on them. the 40 theing that mimic came out in 1869. when we got off ellis island,

the founders could have never and vision such a porous border like what we have, nor the speed of mass transportation, and of course, media to inform people that they could come to this country and just have babies, and then they would have citizens. that peoples wrong don't want to come here and learn english, and be , and haved, and just and just come and have a baby. i do not think the founders could have envisioned anything like this. host: you think the society has outpaced the 14th amendment? caller: it is sticking to principles, i think is what it is. -- people understand

can't understand that even though things have changed around you, you can't change principles. people thatat the were going to be in this country, if it were to work, would basically be self governed . in other words, they would be people with their own self under control before they try being in the government. i think that is one of the things -- we don't have the morality in this country. just look at our drug problems and other things. founders could have never citizensd who the would be, there are supposedly going to take over the government. on what therove founders did, but we have to look at certain things that are out of control that had a good

.urpose when they first started it's like unions, they have a good purpose when they first started, but then it got out of control. we have to stick to the principles of what they meant, and adjust accordingly. it could not have envisioned what we are facing right now. it is not common sense to say anyone who wants to come here to have a baby can just come in. if you're not going to add to society, what are you going to do? you are going to tear down. esst: we will hear from j in california -- jeff in california. go ahead. caller: think you for taking my call. i think the 14th of them it should be changed because of the mentality of people coming over here from mexico. for what i understand, the people in mexico would never happy with the deal of us buying arizona, california, new mexico,

and nevada. actually, the people coming over right now having babies are doing get premeditated, and very clandestine. they are winning. it is slowly coming in and taking over this whole country. they have managed to take all of jobs.od paying i know several farmers that every year there on the news saying they can't find any people to pick their crops. that is because they are working ,n meatpacking jobs construction jobs that pay really well. host: is it an enforcement is issue or a change in the constitution issue? caller: i would sayha