In the person of HuffPo "legal affairs writer" Cristian Farias, who argues today that (assuming I have all of this crap straight) a duly passed and ratified constitutional amendment banning "birthright citizenship" (which should be unnecessary because Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment already does this) would itself be "unconstitutional" and the SCOTUS would strike it down on that basis.
Seriously:
It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of [alien]s — 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…
[F]or all the provisions and principles that the Fourteenth Amendment stands for — and birthright citizenship is only one of them.... [emphasis added]
No, it's not, Cristie.
....one of the amendment’s cornerstones is its promise of equal treatment for everyone…
As long as they're Hispanic and hear illegally.
[F]ederal courts can and will scrutinize any law or ordinance specifically targeting Latinos.
Even if the language of the law or ordinance does no such thing, and the "disparate impact" is a function of La Raza's own criminal choices.
And judges will be punishing in their review, applying a stiff constitutional test known as “strict scrutiny.”…
Imposing their own opinions, regardless of what the law of the Fourteenth Amendment actually says.
So if any of the GOP proposals to strip [alien] children of birthright citizenship....
To which they're not constitutionally entitled.
....make it into law, it won’t be long before they are challenged in court and, ultimately, found unconstitutional.
First of all, since "judicial review" is itself unconstitutional, given that Article III does not give the federal courts the power to "interpret" law but rather merely "apply" it, they do not have the legal authority, constitutionally speaking, to strike down any law they happen to ideologically oppose. They do have the power, however, which is the core of the judicial oligarchist problem from which we are suffering.
But Farias is not talking about just statutes passed by simple legislative majorities; he's talking about the SCOTUS striking down as "unconstitutional" constitutional amendments, passed and ratified by supermajorities, that are, by definition, part of the Constitution. Which I have to give Farias credit for dreaming up, because after Obergefell v. Hodges and King v. Burwell, I didn't think the Left could come up with a more egregiously tyrannical abuse of judicial power, but this assclown has raised that bar anyway. Now he's calling for the Supremes to not just extralegally and unconstitutionally write ideological garbage into the Constitution by totally bypassing Article V, as they've been doing for over half a century, but to also illegally block corrective Amendments legally added to the Constitution via the Article V process.
I'm not a fan of Ace's co-blogger Drew McCoy, but on this one he scores a bullseye:
[I]f we ever did reach the point where the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional amendment, defying Article V and cutting off the people’s supreme democratic right to assert their will on any policy matter with a super-majority, it would be time for armed rebellion. Quite right. That would be a coup, nothing less.
No need to fret, though, because no such statute, much less redundant birthright citizenship law/Amendment could ever pass, much less win ratification. Against which Mr. Farias's inane piece is no doubt taken seriously as a deterrent "shot across the bow".
Exit question: How is it that Cristian Farias has a paying job writing about constitutional issues and we don't?
No comments:
Post a Comment