A Huffington Post legal reporter quickly revised an article this week after readers challenged his assertion that amending the Constitution to do away with the 14th Amendment is itself unconstitutional.
Cristian Farias’ article, titled “Sorry, Republicans: Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Be Unconstitutional,” comes on the heels of several Republican presidential candidates saying they’d be open to doing away with the amendment that provides birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
Former reality TV star Donald Trump, for example, said this week that the current children of immigrants are not legitimate U.S. citizens, and that he’d be willing to test the idea out in court. Farias suggested this week that it doesn’t “need to go that far.”
“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 original version of his article read. “The same would be true for a Republican-backed bill with a similar goal that’s pending in Congress.”
Though they don’t quite go as far as Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also said they’re open to ending birthright citizenship.
Farias continued, “The reason these proposals would be found unconstitutional is rooted in the very thing Republicans are attacking: the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The article’s supposed thesis — that attempts to amend the Constitution can somehow be in of themselves unconstitutional — did not go unchallenged Thursday.
“The HuffPo piece is a perfect example of politics trumping law. Effectively: ‘But this is so offensive to me it must be unconstitutional,'” National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke said on social media.
New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait asked separately, “Maybe a stupid question, but isn’t a constitutional amendment constitutional by definition?”
The original story at times seemed to conflate the idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship, and passing a law to end it.
Farias later amended the article to explain his meaning in clearer terms, an apparent response to online criticism of his original report.
It now reads in part, “It turns out that an amendment aiming to change the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — could theoretically be found unconstitutional long before it could make it into the document in the first place.”
“The same would be true for a Republican-backed bill with a similar goal that’s pending in Congress,” the most recent version reads. “The reason these proposals could be found unconstitutional is rooted in the very thing Republicans are attacking: the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
The story also carries the following editor’s note: “Language has been added to explain the complexity of finding a proposed constitutional amendment unconstitutional.”
Changes in place, Farias’ point remains: Attempts to amend the Constitution so as to target a specific group will most likely prove unconstitutional. But the piece still mingles in the idea of passing a law as well.
“So if any of the GOP proposals to strip immigrant children of birthright citizenship make it into law, it won’t be long before they are challenged in court and, ultimately, found unconstitutional,” he wrote.
“Lawsuits under the 14th Amendment can be messy, and one would hope that anti-immigrant sentiment never reaches a point that federal courts have to get involved. But if past cases have taught us anything, we can rest assured that the judiciary won’t let the likes of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) run roughshod over the Constitution with ideas that purport to fix it,” he added.
The Huffington Post legal writer did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.
