Scalia would have made extremely short work of the Anton/Trump understanding of whether birthright citizenship can be repealed under the 14th Amendment. I suspect Gorsuch will do the same. It's time someone wrote a refresher on what Textualism means as an interpretative approach.
People who come at me citing [Senator X] at the time of ratification saying something different are missing the point: the plain meaning of the language, as those words were understood at the time the Amendment was adopted, governs under Textualism. Not esoteric "true intent."
Please understand; I say all of this as a strong *opponent of birthright citizenship*, at least for illegal aliens (I have no problem with it for people here legally). But that's just too bad for me and my policy preferences. The text of the 14th Amendment is clear.
Maybe the drafters of the 14th Amendment should have written a better Amendment if they wanted something else! But they didn't, and there's no ambiguity in the language that would force one to look past the text into the legislative history.
Ironically enough, the only interpretive theory under which birthright citizenship could be possibly revoked (whether by EO or legislative act) is the 'living Constitutionalism' so beloved of the progressive judicial Left...
...which dispenses with the plain meaning of text as understood at the time of adoption (the Textualist approach) and substitutes a gauzy "well times have changed and let's grow with the times" quicksand approach. Raise your hand: you want a SCOTUS majority that thinks that way?
Anyway, I look forward to a whole passel of Sudden 14th Amendment Experts springing up on Twitter today like mushrooms after a summer rainstorm. Surely our collective intelligence will be increased.
