Legal affairs reporter for the Huffington Post Cristian Farías has a new piece out on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship that’s turning heads today, but not in a good way. He claims — believe it or not — that even proposing to amend the constitution is somehow unconstitutional.
For real:
.@cristianafarias on why amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship could be unconstitutional http://t.co/HvQkuRmo1V
— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) August 19, 2015
It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — would probably be found unconstitutional. The same would be true for a Republican-backed bill with a similar goal that’s pending in Congress.
Tweeters from both the left and the right quickly pushed back on this nonsense, sparking a lively back-and-forth with Farías attempting to defend his position:
This strikes me as being . . . wrong. https://t.co/PDWuR7qPKg
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 20, 2015
@aterkel @cristianafarias Maybe a stupid question, but isn't a constitutional amendment constitutional by definition?
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) August 20, 2015
@jonathanchait @aterkel It begins with a proposal. And since the proposal is rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment, it's ostensibly illegal.
— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) August 20, 2015
@charlescwcooke @cristianafarias @jonathanchait @aterkel I have to agree. Constitutional amendments aren't subject to a motive analysis.
— IWantNothingHat (@Popehat) August 20, 2015
@Popehat @charlescwcooke @jonathanchait @aterkel Have we ever seen such a crazy hypothetical—a constitutional amendment rooted in animus?
— Cristian Farias (@cristianafarias) August 20, 2015
@cristianafarias @Popehat @jonathanchait @aterkel That’s entirely irrelevant. The means by which the document’s amended is clearly laid out.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 20, 2015
@charlescwcooke @cristianafarias @jonathanchait @aterkel Cristian, you're letting your politics override your judgment. Stop.
— IWantNothingHat (@Popehat) August 20, 2015
Exactly.
Many others jumped in to mock the HuffPo reporter as well:
The HuffPo piece is a perfect example of politics trumping law. Effectively: “But this is *so* offensive to me it must be unconstitutional.”
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 20, 2015
Yes, according to the Huffington Post, it is unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. https://t.co/w8c1Ax2AIi
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) August 20, 2015
https://twitter.com/SomePizzaLawyer/status/634375465059250177
— David Edward ? (@_David_Edward) August 20, 2015
Whatever one thinks of the merits, the notion that a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional is asinine. https://t.co/ZXWi7l1EWL
— David B. Cohen (@DavidBCohen1) August 20, 2015
Well, this is absolutely ridiculously insane. https://t.co/jGMtFPYu1O
— Irregular Baxter (@kbaxter) August 20, 2015
Liberal constitutional reasoning at its finest: the constitution itself could be unconstitutional! https://t.co/B1mpwCx6Bw
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 20, 2015
The geniuses on the left truly value and treasure the Constitution. https://t.co/3lWtS4V7mm
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 20, 2015
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/634357604555354112
@aterkel "It's clearly unconstitutional to amend the Constitution for reasons I don't like." Brilliant legal analysis. @cristianafarias
— Not-So-OK Boomer Rand (@Rand_Simberg) August 20, 2015
Maybe they should put their legal affairs reporting in their Entertainment section right next to their Donald Trump reporting? We’re certainly entertained by it!
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member