There are politicians who evolve their positions and there are politicians who get caught, and Ted Cruz is currently experiencing the second situation after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship on Tuesday and Cruz immediately called for a constitutional amendment to end it, prompting journalists to surface his 2011 Harvard Law Review article arguing that birthright citizenship is constitutionally required.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil is enforceable and that Trump’s executive order attempting to end it is unconstitutional. Cruz, per HuffPost, went on Fox News within hours to call for a constitutional amendment to close what he described as the “birthright citizenship loophole.” In 2011, Cruz wrote in the Harvard Law Review that birthright citizenship is not a loophole but a constitutional guarantee, and that the text of the 14th Amendment is clear. He was a constitutional law scholar at the time. He is now a senator calling the same text a loophole.
Cruz’s position has traveled the distance between constitutional law scholarship and political expedience without, apparently, stopping for directions. He is not alone. Multiple Republican senators released amendment proposals within minutes of the ruling, per Fox News: Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Eric Schmitt all had statements drafted before the ink was settled, suggesting either extraordinary speed or extraordinary preparation for a ruling they did not expect to win. The court agreed with them about the constitutional text. Their response is to change the constitutional text.
Speaker Mike Johnson, per Fox News, said Congress is considering both a constitutional amendment and legislation in response, though he “wants to fully review the court’s opinion before deciding which legislative path Republicans should pursue,” which is the language of a man who has not read the opinion yet and wants the option to review it after the press conference.
JD Vance called the ruling a “major, major mistake” and said the 5-4 description means the concept is “hanging by a thread,” which is an unusual read of the 6-3 vote the court actually produced, suggesting Vance may also be reviewing the opinion.
When a senator calls a constitutional guarantee a loophole after writing a law review article defending the same guarantee, which version of him was doing constitutional scholarship?
Sources
Fox News live: SCOTUS birthright citizenship ruling
Slate: The Supreme Court Narrowly Rules That America Can Stay America
Raw Story: ‘Took my breath away’: Expert flags ‘precarious situation’ Supreme Court just created
