MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. It's your turn. They're reading the Constitution even as we speak in the House of Representatives right now. I'd like to hear your opinion about that. You can start calling at 800-433-8850. Right now, 800-433-8850. You can send us e-mail to kojo@wamu.org, make a comment at our website, kojoshow.org or send us a tweet @kojoshow, but start calling, 800-433-8850, because if you don't I'll have to start reading the Constitution aloud on the air.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIEach member of the House of Representatives seems to be reading one or two lines, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be participating. Do you find this a useful exercise or an exercise in pomposity, as the editorial in The New York Times yesterday referred to it. A lot of people are objecting to that characterization of it, and The New York Times mentioning that maybe they are interested in making people who look like me three-fifth of a man. Once again, there are people who are objecting to that, others who are supporting it. 800-433-8850.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIAs you know Capt. Owen Honors, the commander of the USS Enterprise has been relieved of his command. He's now doing a desk job because of videos that he made in 2006 and 2007 that can be charitably described as sophomoric, but many people thought they were much more dangerous than that. However, there are those who say could this be a rush to judgment, could the Obama administration be surely Shirley Sherroded again. Remember Shirley Sherrod, the Department of Agriculture official, about whom a video was submitted which turned out to be a highly edited video and later everybody it seems in the White House and in the Department of Agriculture had egg on their faces as a result of it.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIJust asking, you may have been reading about several states seeking to change immigration laws, seeking to change the 14th Amendment, which says that anybody who was born in the United States regardless of whether that person's parents are or are not in the country legally is a U.S. citizen and American. They are seeking to have that changed. It may be a fairly difficult proposition. Lawmakers are considering that that they would like to create two kinds of birth certificates in those states, one for the children of citizens, another for the children of illegal immigrants. The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor. What do you think about that? Good move or not? 800-433-8850.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIAn election upcoming in Sudan in which Southern Sudan is going to have the opportunity to decide if it wants to be independent. You might want to weigh in on that. Or if you want to go regional or local, the appointments made by Vincent Gray, the new mayor of the District of Columbia. He will be our guest on the Politics Hour tomorrow. You may have some advance questions or observations for or about him. 800-433-8850.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIWe begin with Luis in Kensington, Md. Luis, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

LUISHi, Kojo. Thanks for the show.

NNAMDIYou're welcome.

LUISI am considering throwing myself in the river now that Republicans have started. (laugh) What did they do yesterday? They passed legislation that has nothing to do with jobs. Today, they're reading the Constitution, which has nothing to do with jobs. It had nothing to do with anything. It's just their agenda. And damn if you go anywhere else. This is what we're gonna get for the next two years or worse if it gets to that. I'd like you to comment. Thanks.

NNAMDIWell, before you go, Luis, you should know...

LUISYeah.

NNAMDI...that we heard from Kathy in Middletown, Md. who says that reading the Constitution is a great idea. She wonders how many of our elected officials take the time to read it. What would you say to that?

LUISWell, I think it's a great idea, but at this point in time, you could say go read the Constitution, gentlemen, and leave it alone, instead of spending time -- I mean, they're getting paid to do this. It's just a show. It seems like a show. They're trying to show Sarah Palin that she has all this influence. Everybody wants the Constitution. Well, the Constitution has been there. It's not gonna away. We don't need to read it in Congress to make sure that everybody knows it.

NNAMDIThank you very much, Luis. But as a professional skeptic, I just wonder how or whether each individual who is reading one or two lines of that Constitution can offer us any guarantees that he or she is reading the entire Constitution. We don't know. But those of us who are -- who happened to be watching or listening to it will be hearing the entire Constitution.

NNAMDIWe move onto Daniel in Chantilly, Va. Daniel, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

DANIELIt's a great idea that everyone read the Constitution. I believe it's a good example so that members of Congress can set that example, and I also believe that if we don't know the rules and the laws of our country, then we're more apt to abrogate those. And clearly, it would make more sense for every lawmaker to know the Constitution forwards and backwards.

NNAMDIHave you been concerned in recent years that members of Congress do not know the Constitution?

DANIELWell, whether or not they know it, whether or not they are familiar with it, I think they are the rules that we all should follow, and I don't believe the last Congress followed the intent of those laws and rules.

NNAMDIHow so?

DANIELI think it's a good idea to refresh.

NNAMDIHow so? Why didn't you think the last Congress followed the rules, the laws, the provisions of the Constitution?

DANIELWell, I believe there was a quote ascribed to lady -- the former House speaker...

NNAMDINancy Pelosi?

DANIEL...from California who said that when she took the gavel two years back that it would be a pay-as-you-go and balanced budget only moving forward, but that was certainly not the case looking at the astronomical deficits we now are burdened with. Would you not agree?

NNAMDIIt seems to me that those deficits were inherited from a Republican to a Democratic Congress.

DANIELTrillions of dollars, no, no, my friend. It has quadrupled in the last two years.

NNAMDIYou don't think that when the Democrats took over the Congress of the United States we had a significant deficit that resulted from the Iraq War?

DANIELWell, I believe that was -- in fact, a deficit, for sure, but it has quadrupled in two and a half years, and that's the problem more so than what was the deficit in 2008-2009.

NNAMDIWhat do you think we and the Congress can learn from what the Constitution says about deficits?

DANIELWell, I can't quote that. Can you quote that section to me?

NNAMDINo, I'm busy watching and listening to the reading of the Constitution, but I thought you might be able to.

DANIELI don't have it in front of me. Actually, I'm in my car. If pulled over to read that, I would probably...

NNAMDIWell, the only reason I brought that up is because you are the one who asserted that the Congress didn't follow the Constitution in piling up those deficits so it was my conclusion, maybe incorrectly, that you therefore knew that part of the Constitution.

DANIELI believe a scholar would be able to refer to that section directly. I don't consider myself a scholar.

NNAMDIOkay, Daniel, thank you very much for your call. I don't consider myself a scholar either. I just pretend to be one some days. Here is Tony in Charles Town, W. Va. Tony, you are on the air. Go ahead, please.

TONYHello, Kojo. How are you doing today?

NNAMDII'm well.

TONYYeah. Happy New Year, first of all.

NNAMDIHappy New Year to you.

TONYThank you, Sir. I think it's absolutely ridiculous for the Congress to take two hours of our time to read something that they should have read before they get to work. When I come to work in the morning, my boss expects me to know the things that I need to know. I expect the Congress to know the Constitution, learn the Constitution and not to put on a big show about reading it, because no one can learn it in the time that they're reading it right now. So they need to study it before they get there.

NNAMDISo you think that this is just a show?

TONYIt's absolutely a show. It's absolutely a show just to show a certain part of the American public that, well, there's a new sheriff in town and so we're gonna make everything go by the Constitution. It's ridiculous, in my opinion.

NNAMDIIt's not a civics lesson for the entire nation?

TONYWell...

NNAMDIYou don't...

TONYI guess, the civics lesson is you should study these things when it's time to study them. It's not time to study them if you're paid to go do a job to go learn stuff that you need to know to do that job after you get there.

NNAMDIIt's on-the-job training, I guess, Tony. Thank you very much for your call. It is your turn. We're taking your calls on any topic on your mind. A few callers there talking about members of Congress reading the Constitution aloud today, but you may want to talk about another issue. Several states seeking to change the immigration laws seeking to change the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which says that any child born in the United States regarding -- regardless of the legal status of their child's parents is an American. You might want to talk about anything that's going on in our politics regionally in Maryland, Virginia or the District of Columbia or anything on your mind. Just call us. We're here to take your calls. 800-433-8850. It's your turn.

NNAMDIHere is Keith in Montgomery County, Md. Keith, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

KEITHYes. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. And I want to respond to any child being born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

NNAMDIYes.

KEITHAnd I think that Republican -- I think Republicans are racists. The policy that they're trying to go back and change, in my opinion, is a racist policy. And I think that we need to go back, and we need to look and analyze very carefully the type of policies that they had in place on slavery. They said that black people were only two-fifths of a person.

NNAMDIThree-fifths. Three-fifths. Three-fifths.

KEITHThree-fifths, two-fifths. But they weren't a whole person. Thank you. And this is a racist policy.

NNAMDIWell, why do you say it is a racist policy? There are those who feel that...

KEITHBecause first...

NNAMDI...that the accusation...

KEITH...because...

NNAMDI...of racism is thrown around too loosely, what is...

KEITHNo, no.

NNAMDI...the evidence that you present?

KEITHI can (unintelligible) because when we go back and we look at the whole issue of -- first of all, we need to look out -- look at how everybody came to this country. People of color, black people, are they -- the Indians were already here. They came -- white people came here and took the land from them, killed them off. Black people were brought here against their will as slaves. Then Europeans started coming here, and everything was open to the European -- to white people. Okay?

NNAMDIWhat does that have to do, Keith, with this particular move to have children who are born to parents who are in the country illegally?

KEITHBecause I think it's anti-racist because, first of all, a lot -- although people from around the world are coming, the majority now or the bulk of people that are here are people of color, and I think that basically and subliminally targeting the Hispanic population and people of African descent.

NNAMDIWell, I...

KEITHNow, they want to go back to...

NNAMDI...brought that up to say that there are several civil rights organizations that have said that this is indeed a racist policy so I thought that's what...

KEITHIt is definitely.

NNAMDI...you were talking about because what they say is that it is a response to the large number of Hispanics who are perceived to be in this country illegally and...

KEITHAbsolutely.

NNAMDI...an attempt to prevent them from...

KEITHAbsolutely, absolutely.

NNAMDIHowever...

KEITHIs a target -- is to target the Hispanic population.

NNAMDIHowever, those same civil rights organizations say that most people who enter the country illegally do not enter for the purpose of having children because those children can only apply to have their parents become permanent residents or cities -- citizens when they become 21 years old. So the civil rights group argue that it is really difficult to imagine someone coming into the country illegally to wait 21 years until their child becomes of age to apply for their citizenship. Just like to hear what you think, and thank you for your call, Keith. 800-433-8850. We're gonna take a short break. When we come back -- if you are already on the line, stay there. If there are any other issues you'd like to raise, feel free to raise them at our website, kojoshow.org. Or send us a tweet, @kojoshow. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIIt's the first edition of Your Turn for the New Year, where you get to raise any issue that's on your mind. Issues that you have on your mind, concerned about that you haven't been seeing covered in the media? Call us, 800-433-8850, or send us an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. We move on now to Gary in Washington D.C. Gary, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

GARYHi, Kojo. First of all, I just wanted to mention about the Constitution that -- the United States existed before the Constitution did and hopefully will exist after the Constitution did. It's not -- it’s not the -- it didn't exist at the founding of the nation, and it -- and it's not the end all and be all with the United States.

NNAMDIHow do you view the Constitution if it is not the end all and be all?

GARYIt's a legal document that helps us establish our society in the way that the Articles of Confederation tried to do. But both of them are very, very flawed documents, and perhaps we could do better.

NNAMDIOkay. Thank you very much for your call. In reference to our caller, Daniel, the U.S. Constitution, as far as we know, does not include any explicit reference to deficits. However, many states do have balanced budget amendments that require them to spend only as much as they take in, but no such amendment has ever been passed at a federal level. On now to Christina in Manassas, Va. Christina, you're on the air. Go ahead please.

CHRISTINAHi, Kojo. Always an interesting conversation listening to you on the radio. I was in the airport the other day, looking for a book to buy on a flight, and I came across this small copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And I think that...

NNAMDIIn the airport.

CHRISTINAIn the airport, yes. In one of the bookstores in the airport. And so, you know, it had been grade school or middle school since I've read it. And so I picked it up, and I started reading it. And I would encourage everyone to do the same. I don't know, but if I saw it on C-SPAN, I would sit and listen to the Constitution being read. But for me personally going through it and looking how far our country has come since this was written and how insightful and knowledgeable the people who wrote this were -- but you know, as you mentioned the three-fifths of a man, I mean, obviously, we've had to make a huge stride since this was written because ideologies have change. But I would certainly encourage everyone to purchase it and read it. I've had it in my pocketbook for three months now, and I refer to it, you know, when I have questions. And I don't affiliate myself with a particular party. I kind of go on the issues and make...

NNAMDIThat's fine. That's fine. But I want to pin you down on another issue. You said you enjoyed reading it. But you're not sure you would enjoy watching members of Congress read it on television. Why not?

CHRISTINAWell, it's just -- I'll go back to something that Diane Rehm just had on (unintelligible) if someone chose between $100 and an extra hour back in their life, I would definitely take the extra hour back in my life. So watching C-SPAN isn't on the top of my priority list. But, you know, for me, personally, I think it's a good read. And, you know, other things that I have to do, such as -- I'm driving to work right now, but...

NNAMDIWell...

CHRISTINA...it's a good read and it's very interesting.

NNAMDI...just so you know, Christina, our producer Brendan Sweeney considers it riveting television. He couldn't take his eyes off it this morning. So, you too might feel the same. Thank you very much for your call, Christina. 800-433-8850 is the number to call. It's Your Turn, whether you want to discuss the reading of the Constitution or anything else on your mind, domestic policy, foreign affairs or anything else. 800-433-8850. We move on now to Sky (sp?) in Waterford, Va. Sky, your turn.

SKYHello.

NNAMDIHi, Sky.

SKYHi. (laugh) I'm so excited that you're doing this program because I have just been reading Alexander Hamilton's biography by Ron Chernow. And I am just so amazed and impressed and grateful with what our forefathers did for us with the Constitution and how hard they had to fight to get it ratified and how thoughtful, how much effort they put into it. And it was so difficult. There were no cars, no, you know, telephones, no Internet. It was really an amazing job that they did.

NNAMDIQuick. Why are people from the Virgin Islands so proud of Alexander Hamilton?

SKYWhy are what?

NNAMDIPeople from the Virgin Islands -- the U.S. Virgin Islands so proud...

SKYOh, because he was an immigrant, actually from St. Croix and he was very...

NNAMDIThere you go.

SKY...anti-slavery. He was just the most amazing man and flawed, of course, and deeply flawed, but a very amazing, hardworking, believed in the country right from the beginning. He was just -- I'm very grateful to him and to Washington and to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams for what they did for us.

NNAMDISky, are you watching or listening to the reading of the Constitution in the Congress today?

SKYNo. I'm in the car right now, but I'm going to. That's my next read, is the Constitution. I'm embarrassed that at my ripe old age, I was so ignorant and uninformed. So this is -- it's a very important -- every American should know this and appreciate what we have.

NNAMDIOh, if you listen to the reading of it, you'd be on another station. So we're very, very happy that you're staying right here, Sky. Thank you very much for your call.

SKYThank you.

NNAMDIIt's Your Turn. and we're inviting your calls on any issue you care to discuss at 800-433-8850. Or you can go to our website, kojoshow.org and make a comment there. We got an e-mail from Nate in Alexandria who said, "Just wanted to chime in on Captain Owen Honors. I'm afraid Secretary of Defense Gates had no choice but to dismiss Captain Honors. The navy should be embarrassed that a man of his stature could be so clueless and have no concept of what workplace appropriate means. The video was disgraceful and kudos to the White House and Secretary Gates for sending a strong message by dismissing him."

NNAMDIOne of the reasons I raised the question was that a lot of men who -- and women who served with Owen Honors have rushed to his defense saying that you should understand that he also use those videos to teach very important lessons. The thing that surprised me most about the video, frankly, was Commander Owen Honor's age because he seemed to be an older man who were -- who was trying his best to appeal to people who were a lot younger than he was and in very many ways, the use of the word sophomoric to describe what he did seems so out of place for a man of his age and stature that I suspect that that's why it drew a great deal of attention. But it's your turn. We're interested in hearing more of your comments than mine. So here is Kaye in Germantown, Md. Kaye, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

KAYEThank you, Kojo. And my comments are directly associated with the relieving of the (word?) of the USS Enterprise. I'm a naval officer myself and at the end of the day, you are responsible for the tone that you set as the leader. And the tone that he set as a leader said it was appropriate to make sexual innuendo that totally crossed the line. You know, we have great naval traditions. We know how to have fun. We work hard. We play hard. But you are taught first day as a leader and especially because he graduated from the Naval Academy, he -- there is no excuse. You know that what the tone you set set, sets the tone for the command. And if he was doing that on TV, imagine what was going on in the underpinnings of his command. So Secretary Gates and the military lead the navy leadership made an absolute right decision. There is no, no place for this.

NNAMDIKaye.

KAYEAnd everybody and their mother in the navy knows that.

NNAMDIKaye, why would you think that Owen Honors would go out of his way to mention in the videos that people had objected to it saying that they found it offensive, but yet, go on to do it anyway?

KAYEBecause he was making a point, and I can say this as someone who had something sexually explicit stated to me by one of my leaders. And when I brought that to his -- when I brought that to him in the leadership and I stated that I felt that that was crossing the line, that it was inappropriate, wouldn't be tolerated, he made it a point to then make my life a living hell. So, you know, yes, you could go and you could tell people this is inappropriate, but if that person, the person that you are going to that is in that leadership position doesn't feel as though you're warranted in that, they try to make an example of you. They try to make your life uncomfortable.

KAYEBut that's the bad leadership. And that’s very small minority of the naval officers I know. Many of the naval officers I know are hard working. They support -- they keep their people. They want their mission to get done. They believe in communication and camaraderie. They reinforce those things. They know how to have fun with people. But they also know that honor, courage and commitment are the core values of our navy, and they are not exemplified by doing sophomoric act as that captain did. And I have to say that I went on YouTube and I specifically looked at that whole 12-minute video, and I was absolutely disgusted.

NNAMDII admire your courage. I couldn't make it. I couldn't make it through all 12 minutes. I'm sorry.

KAYEWell, I have to tell you, I -- because, you know, people will say anything in this media age and know a lot of people saying, well, you know -- he doesn't -- people don't understand and blah, blah. And I said, well, you know, let me see for myself what exactly is going on. And I have to say that that was the very bad advertisement of a navy. And that is not the navy I know. I've had tons of fun in the navy. I have gone to ports. I have done shopping. I have done the crossing on the line...

NNAMDIOh, okay.

KAYEYou know.

NNAMDII could -- I could have probably made it through all 12 minutes when I was eight or nine years old, and even then I many not have considered it that funny. But, no, I -- I couldn't make it for all 12 minutes.

KAYEWhy? So you acknowledge the power and I will tell anyone, please do not use that as, this is how the navy is. That is not -- he is a small minority. We are global force for good. We are doing wonderful things.

NNAMDIKaye...

KAYEAnd if you wanna be a part of a great organization, join the U.S. Navy.

NNAMDIKaye, thank you very much for sharing your story with us. It's your turn. That's why Kaye was sharing her story with us. You, too, can share yours, your concern about any issue in the news or maybe a personal experience that relate -- that's related to something that's currently in the news. 800-433-8850. Here is Steve in Warrenton, Va. Steve, your turn.

STEVEHi, Kojo. I love the show. Thank you. I was wondering if you could provide insight as to the rational proponents of the legislation for the two different types of birth certificate. I'm always confuse that if -- what is it being used for if it isn't eventually gonna create a de facto type of second-class citizen? When -- how are they defending it like this?

NNAMDIWell, the purpose of the two birth certificate approach, according to yesterday's edition of The New York Times, is that the proponents are hoping that this will spark a flurry of lawsuits. And they're hoping that if a flurry of lawsuits are filed, that this will go from court to court and, ultimately, that the Supreme Court will rule that they are, in fact, right and that it would make, ultimately, the 14th Amendment null and void. And therefore, the children of immigrants who happen to be in this country illegally would no longer be considered U.S. citizens, because until that happens, the 14th Amendment would hold sway. That seems to be the objective of the strategy.

STEVEHmm. Okay. Well, thank you.

NNAMDINo, what are your thoughts about it, Steve?

STEVENo, I think it's kind of gaming the system, I suppose. But it doesn't -- anything that is used in an obstructionist fashion, trying to, I guess -- if you're gonna go forward to repeal the 14th Amendment or...

NNAMDIWell, repealing the 14th Amendment, I think, the proponents of the strategy field would be too cumbersome. They'd have to go through too much to repeal the 14th Amendment. This might be the easier way to go, as far as they're concerned.

STEVESo the easier way would be to create a flurry of court cases to -- and to flood the system that way. It's that kind of...

NNAMDIExactly. Exactly. We'll post a link on our website to that piece in The New York Times. There's also a piece in today's edition of The Washington Post. But, Steve, thank you very much for your call.

STEVEThank you, Kojo.

NNAMDIWe move on to Adam in Bethesda, Md. Adam, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ADAMHi, Kojo. One thing I've noticed -- and I was reminded of this by one of your earlier callers, is I feel like people are now just kind of taking the Constitution to mean whatever they want. If I don't like something, that means it's unconstitutional. If I disagree with the policy, it's unconstitutional. The spending comment that the man referring to Nancy Pelosi -- he may have had a valid point, but it had nothing to do with the Constitution. And I think that's a perfect example. And my question is, when did this happen? How did this start?

NNAMDIWell, on a point of information, Adam, we got a tweet from Anxious Bulldog who says, "For what it's worth, the word deficit does not occur in the U.S. Constitution, budget also does not appear, tax appears 10 times." In terms of what did -- when did this all start, by this, you mean this constant referencing of the Constitution whenever people would disagree with something?

ADAMYeah, that's what I mean.

NNAMDIOh, it probably started about 10 minutes after the Constitution was written. And it has, however, intensified in the recent divisive atmosphere that we have in Washington and around the country politically that everyone seems to want to claim a certain moral and legal authority to their positions to nullify the other position, because the notion of compromise, according to those people, seems to be the notion that if you compromise, then you are betraying some fundamental value that is espoused by the Constitution, which obviously is not true.

ADAMYeah, it's just -- it seems like that kind of dogmatic view of things is -- maybe it's just I've only become aware of it recently, but it seems like it came from somewhere. I'm -- I guess, I might be asking sort of unanswerable question, it's just I'm curious if you have any...

NNAMDISomeone else might be able to answer it, and that person is free to call at 800-433-8850, because, Adam, I can't answer it, but thank you very much for your call. This e-mail we got from Leo in Greenbelt, Md. "Reading the Constitution aloud could be a useful exercise even if it's only a symbolic one. I don't care for the Republicans assertion that they are the only legitimate arbiters of the meaning. The Supreme Court exists in part, because reasonable people can disagree about how it should be interpreted. Also, the Democrats are sworn to uphold the Constitution just as the Republicans are. The thought that only one side is concerned with its contents is insulting, arrogant and inaccurate." So, Leo, tell me how you really feel. We move on to Scott in Tacoma Park, Md. Scott, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

SCOTTYes. I have a couple comments that really go back to the -- your first topic about reading the Constitution. The first one is that they're taking two hours to read the Constitution. And yet, one of the big things they talked about last week was this thing about eliminating the commemorative actions by Congress, you know, about, you know, a team that won a championship or whatever is just a waste of time. I read an article the other day that said that the average time to clear one of those actions was about 45 seconds. (laugh) And because basically the guy reads the thing, there can be four people in the entire House, unanimous vote, boom, cleared, done. (laugh) The other thing is that I think the two hours they're spending right now could be much better spent in a proctored test of the members of the House of Representatives on the Constitution.

NNAMDIOkay. Thank you very...

SCOTTOne final footnote...

NNAMDIGo ahead, Scott.

SCOTT...if you now go and renew your passport...

NNAMDIYes?

SCOTT...you get a copy of the Constitution that's the same the size as your passport.

NNAMDIThere you go. Thank you very much for sharing that with us, Scott. We got a posting on our website by Charlotte, who says, "One of the highlights of my 4th of July is the NPR reading of the Declaration of Independence. These are great documents. I'm not sure that members of Congress will bring the feeling I get from the NPR personalities, but these documents read well because they were written by highly articulate people." It's Your Turn. We're taking your calls. We're taking your posts on our website. We're taking your tweets and your e-mail about whatever is on your mind. So call us now, 800-433-8850. Go to our website, kojoshow.org. Send us a tweet @kojoshow or an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org. Here is Jen in Washington, D.C. wanting to remind us about something else. Jen.

JENYes. It's interesting that so many of your callers today on It's your turn are talking about making sure they keep themselves informed from a variety of sources or going directly to the source in order to be able to address the issues in an intelligent way and really see what the truth is with Congress, one should always follow the dollar. In terms of the big picture and trying to fix it, I urge people to take small picture action. Look outside your windows where you live. If you see trees with ivy on them, you may think that is very quaint and Ivy League. Well, it's not. The ivy is strangling the trees and killing them.

JENIt's an invasive species, and now is a great time to cut that ivy off your trees because it's a little chilly and it’s a good exercise to get a workout. There are no ticks out now because we've had two hard frosts, at least two hard frosts. And it's very easy to see where this ivy is now because there's no foliage around it. So this is something kids love to do. They feel like they're really actively participating in their environment. So it's great to take your kids out on a Saturday and say, hey, you know, see, where gonna save the tree. And then that tree is right there for them to enjoy for the, you know, for however long they're gonna be there, for the rest of their lives if they're lucky to see that tree thrive.

JENSo take a minute to look at the small picture. And if you really wanna see the picture, the big picture, go to NOAA’s site, the operational significant event imagery site and there you can get global pictures of the entire world. Temperature change, ocean temperatures, vegetation...

NNAMDIThere you go Jen.

JEN...population, all of it. Go see the big picture, people.

NNAMDIWe've got to take a short break. But Jen, when we say people should call about anything that's on their mind, you exemplify exactly what we mean. Thank you very much for your call. It is your turn. You, too, can call about whatever is on your mind, 800-433-8850, whether it's domestic policy, international policy, the environment or anything else. You can send us a tweet @kojoshow. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIIt's our first of the year edition of Your Turn, where you get to offer your take on issues in the news, other topics that we have discussed and anything else on your mind. You can go to our website kojoshow.org. Send us a tweet @kojoshow. Send an e-mail to kojo@wamu.org or for our what we call our KDAB option, keep Dorie Anisman busy, you can call us at 800-433-8850. Here is Roger in Baltimore, Md. Roger, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ROGERHi, Kojo. I was listening to you on the car on the way to lunch, and you had a caller on who was talking about the budget tripling in the last two years...

NNAMDICorrect.

ROGER...and I've done some research on this for quite some time ago. And just so that they know the facts, at the end of fiscal 2000, the deficit was 5.6 trillion. At the end of 2008, the last full fiscal year that Bush was in office, the deficit was $10 trillion. Sorry, the point that you...

NNAMDIThere you go again, confusing the argument with facts.

ROGERYes. I mean, the comment that you made about the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and all of the other things that were done, they were not funded. People tend to forget that. And that's all I had to add.

NNAMDIRoger, that's why we need callers like you. Thank you very much for doing your homework and for sharing it with us.

ROGERThank you.

NNAMDIYou too can call us, 800-433-8850. Here is Stan in Washington D.C. Stan, your turn.

STANHi. I just -- I was listening to the folks talking about the reading of Constitution, and that's great and admirable. But it should be pointed out that although the text at time seems clear on its face, it isn't. It wasn't designed to be. The Founders knew they were embarking on an experiment, and they left a lot of play in the joints, not knowing what history would hand them. If you want some further confirmation to this, I highly recommend Pauline Maier's new book. She is a historian, well respected. It's on "Ratification." And she has access, when she wrote this, to some accumulated documents from the different states where the ratification process was fought out. And...

NNAMDIWell, what's clear, Stan, is that parts of the Constitution are deliberately unclear.

STANYes. And not only are there parts that are deliberately unclear, but the parts that you might think are straightforward on their face. If you look at the debates in the states in ratification, it may seem clear to you and it may seem clear when you read it aloud, but it wasn't clear to them at that time when they were fighting over it. And the country was deeply involved in that, much more so than the country is now. I hate to say it, but it's true. You know, most people in this country, they're not that involved in tracking this war that we're in, in Iraq. It's not affecting them directly so they just let it slide.

STANBut the country was much more engaged in the constitutional ratification process, and we just shouldn’t assume that because we hear it read or read it ourselves that we understand it. It's designed to be a growing, breathing, evolving document to deal with whatever comes down the pike...

NNAMDIDoes...

STAN...and that was part of the genius of it.

NNAMDIDoes the reading of it allowed on the air suggest to you that we don't see it or that the members of Congress who propose this don't see it as an evolving document, that they see it as a part of tradition that we should simply adhere to?

STANOh, yeah. I think, unquestionably, there is a quasi-scriptural view of the Constitution which if you read any kind of history about it or any interpretation, independent interpretation of how the Supreme Court has construed it, left or right, I don’t care. If you just read a reasonable sampling of that, you'll just fall out laughing. The idea that there's this -- I mean, it's an institution to us and in that sense it's sort of scriptural because it is the creed of the country. But the creed of the country is adaptation, not inflexibility.

NNAMDIStan, let me just share with you a couple of comments we got from listeners who couldn't stay on the air. Linda from Manassas thinks "It's great they're learning about the "Constitution," but it should be homework, not class work" says Linda. Tony and Waldorf says, "Most people in the house seem to be lawyers. They should have studied it already." And Judith in Washington, D.C. says, "Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer. Reading the Constitution must show respect for his expertise." But Stan, thank you very much for sharing your comments also.

STANThank you.

NNAMDIWe move onto Suzanne in Baltimore, Md. Suzanne, your turn.

SUZANNEThank you for taking my call. I wanted to ask a question (word?). I'm very confused with the current litigation that it is unconstitutional to mandate health care coverage. And my question is as a taxpayer of the last 45 years, in 2008, the uncompensated care in the United States was over $700 billion, and the expectation was that my tax dollars would cover that. I never agreed to that. And so, therefore, someone is mandating, without my consent, that I have to pay for people that cannot or will not buy health care.

NNAMDIWell, the constitutional question over the mandate for people to purchase health care has to do with regulating inactivity, that you can't regulate something that people are not doing -- that is, not purchasing health insurance or choosing not to have health insurance.

SUZANNEMm-hmm.

NNAMDIIt's a legal argument that's somewhat above my pay scale as a non-practicing lawyer, (laugh) as a non-practicing non-lawyer, that is. But that, it is my understanding, is the nature of the argument that's taking place. What do you think?

SUZANNEI think it's -- I think that's unconstitutional. Number one, I have no choice. I have to pay for people that come to the emergency room and need care, and I don't deny them that care. But there are many of those people that can pay, but they figure why pay when they can come to the ER and get what they need when they need it? I say to the people out there, if you don't want to buy health care, you don't have to, but if you have a hospital bill or doctor bill, you have to pay it. And if that means we have to tax your pay or your home or your IRA, then we have a right to do that.

NNAMDIWhat if the person who chooses not to have health insurance but has a medical problem has none of the above, none of the things that you mentioned?

SUZANNEWell, then they deservedly need health care, and I would never deny that. I freely and willingly would help them with my taxes. But I've been a health care provider for 30 years, and believe me, I see it every day that people come in that I know for a fact can and they're -- and they right out told me, why should I pay when I know I can come here and get it for free? So that was just a thought, and if anyone can help me understand it a little better, then I would appreciate any comment.

NNAMDISuzanne, thank you very much for your call.

SUZANNEYou're welcome.

NNAMDIThe number to call, for anyone who wants to offer Suzanne some assistance, 800-433-8850. Here is Aldo in Phoenix, Md. Aldo, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ALDOHi, Kojo.

NNAMDIHey.

ALDOThank you for taking my call.

NNAMDIYou're welcome.

ALDOKojo, one of the things I would like to see is that we can limit Congress terms. You know, we have senators and representatives that have been for life and build establishment, and we don't get changes. Why the president have 10 years (sic) maximum years in office? And congressmen, they can be for 50, 60, whatever. So I think that we should do something. They won't vote themselves out. We have to do it.

NNAMDIWell...

ALDOI've been reading...

NNAMDI...you should know...

ALDOI've been reading in a website...

NNAMDIYes.

ALDOI've been -- I'm sorry. I've been reading in a website this nicest essay in reference how 535 people rule 300 millions. The website is called limitcongressterms.com. You know, it's very interesting that nobody does anything, but we hear the new senators and representatives saying that we are back in business.

NNAMDIWell...

ALDONow they are going to change the rule how they are going to play the game. They sure have laws that they don't follow. They vote for Medicaid -- Medicare, and they have a different health insurance. They vote about Social Security, and they have a different retirement plan. So are we the people or they are the people?

NNAMDIWell, just a bit of historical reference, Aldo, you should know or maybe remember that, in the 1994 Congress that elevated Newt Gingrich to speaker of the House, there was a contract with America on which the Republican members came in. And one of the provisions of that contract was for term limits. However, elected officials have a habit of coming into office and then finding out that, well, they like it, so that for (laugh) a variety of reasons, the term limit provisions...

ALDOI know.

NNAMDI...disappeared and we now no longer have term limits on the horizon.

ALDOBut you know what is ironic Kojo, that I've been reading? There are some states that they have passed laws to limit Congress terms in their states, and I think Georgia is one of them. So why can -- can it be done at the state level and we cannot get it at the federal level something that affects us -- all of us. You know, it's -- I read between the lines when politicians talk because they never tell you what they are going to do to generate jobs. They just tell you that we are going to generate more jobs, you know. We are going to cut the expenditure. And they have humongous budgets that nobody knows, and they don't have to say how they spend the money.

NNAMDIWell, it's good, Aldo, that you've learned to read between the lines. We also sometimes have to learn to demystify, and sometimes we just can't figure it out at all. Thank you very much for your call. We move on to Loida in Washington, D.C. Loida, your turn.

LOIDAHi. I'm just calling -- I wanted to clarify one -- a common misconception in regards to the ability of children being born in the U.S., whose parents are illegal, to somehow create a path for their parents to be legal. If somebody enters in illegally, crosses the border illegally, et cetera, if they are not inspected by Customs and Border Patrol, simply having a child will not allow them to be able to adjust status. In fact -- and this is one of the common misconceptions that's thrown out there, that there all these people crossing the border illegally and having babies, and that is somehow gonna be their ticket to citizenship. The law is, if you enter illegally -- not if you come and overstay and are now legal -- illegal. That's a whole different bracket. But if you enter illegally, simply having a child will not create a path to citizenship. I just wanted to clarify that.

NNAMDIThe law also does say, Loida, that parents can be sponsored by their children once the child turns 21 years old.

LOIDABut that's not an option if you enter illegally.

NNAMDIThat is not an option if you enter illegally?

LOIDANo, no, it's not.

NNAMDII think we differ on that one. I think that is an option if you enter illegally, but it's an option that requires waiting 21 years. But we will check up on that and make sure because...

LOIDAPlease do.

NNAMDI...we had some callers ask about this proposed idea to create two types of birth certificates and the idea of repealing the 14th Amendment. So that's something that we will be pursuing. But thank you very much for your call, Loida. We should also note that the "The Diane Rehm Show" has an ongoing series on the Constitution which has been going on for the past year. This coming Monday, the show will be dedicating a full hour to the aforementioned 14th Amendment to the Constitution. So, Loida, you and others will hopefully get greater clarity from that show. We have time for one more. Here is Lance (sp?) in Chambersburg, Pa. Lance, you got about 30 seconds.

LANCEI just wanted to -- I think you and the previous caller about the health insurance hit it right on the -- or close to hitting it right on the nose. The big hole in the Republican argument about health insurance is the fact that we already pay for uninsured people's health insurance. You don't have insurance, you get in a car accident, you show up at a hospital with $200,000 bills paid for by the state. We pay for it already. So the Republican argument says it's okay for free riders to stick us with your insurance -- with your uninsured payment, but it's not okay to ask you to actually be insured. If we're gonna pay for their health care anyway, let's get them into an insurance pool, which makes much more fiscal sense. And that's complete failure, that Republican argument. They prefer free riders. They think it's okay for free riders...

NNAMDIThey would argue that they also believe that America -- every American should be insured. They just don't like the way the Obama administration did it. But I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Thank you all of those who called or sent your e-mails or went to our website or sent us a tweet to participate in Your Turn. And thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.