Strict constructionists only when it suits them

[Ricordanza]

For today's rant, I'm calling out the right wing folks who have been complaining for years about the "judicial activists." They say that Supreme Court justices (and other appellate judges) should apply the words of the Constitution, not look behind those words to stretch the meaning of that document. And Trump has followed that line, appointing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and promising to appoint others who are "strict constructionists."

Now Trump is proposing to end birthright citizenship via an executive order. Paul Ryan has said it can't be done, but he appears to be a lone voice among Republicans. What about the 14th Amendment? Could the words be any more straightforward? Here's what it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Now where are the "strict constructionists?" It appears that they adopt that posture only when the results suit them. On THIS issue, they're saying, Well, you have to look at the intent of the amendment; it was meant to give freed slaves full citizenship; it wasn't meant to give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

So when you hear and read those defending Trump on this issue, just remember, they are not "originalists" or "strict constructionists." Rather, they are hypocrites and ideologues.

[jbuck919]

Strict constructionism has always been a fiction. The Supreme Court does whatever it likes and then fabricates some constitutional rationalization, and that goes all the way to Marbury vs.Madison when the Court decided to give itself that prerogative. I like them when they do what I agree with, an dislike them when they don't. It's as simple as that. (Ralph Stein, himself a bit of a rationalizer in this matter, would have disagreed.)

Having said that, there are certain black-letter matters that are hard to get around on the basis of personal opinion. Trump wants to write an executive order single-handedly nullifying the 14th amendment. I certainly hope that even a court now under his thumb will not recognize that and rebuke him.

[lennygoran]

So when you hear and read those defending Trump on this issue, just remember, they are not "originalists" or "strict constructionists." Rather, they are hypocrites and ideologues.

Henry so true! Len

[Rach3]

Until now, CIS thought birth in the US was enough alone:

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship

Trump apparently forgot to tell them to change their website.

[jbuck919]

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are two other problems with Trump's position. First, he says that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. There are actually 33 countries that have it. Second, he thinks, or says he thinks, that these people are freeloading goofoffs for 85 years who just drain the US receiving benefits (which he does not want anyone to have in the first place). They are productive citizens entirely on a par with all others and contribute at least their fair share to the economy and society. If Trump is just playing to his base, it gives a whole new meaning to the term base.

[Rach3]

If Trump is just playing to his base, it gives a whole new meaning to the term base.

Agreed, except no " If " about it. Depressing is the fact apparently, for most purposes, 35% - 45 % of Americans are in sync with Trump.

[lennygoran]

If Trump is just playing to his base, it gives a whole new meaning to the term base.

Agreed, except no " If " about it. Depressing is the fact apparently, for most purposes, 35% - 45 % of Americans are in sync with Trump.

If only it was was closer to 35% but unfortunately it seems closer to the 45%. Len