Scott Lemieux points to Rep. Steve King's defense of his introduction of an unconstitutional bill to repeal birthright citizenship because that wasn't what the "founding fathers intended." The 14th Amendment was written after the Union was almost destroyed in a bitter Civil War over the authority to treat black people as property, so King may have reached a new level of constitutional radicalism by suggesting that none of the 17 subsequent amendments since ratification actually count. Jonathan Bernstein asks:
But while I'm not ordinarily a fan of dismissing the Framers because they accepted slavery, this is one instance where that really applies. Does King really believe that we should be mindful of the Framers' intent when it comes to the topics of citizenship and the Civil War amendments?
Good question; perhaps we might also inquire whether King thinks women should be allowed to vote? Still, it's not as though King is really all that concerned about the framers' intent. Lemieux notes that King is introducing a bill rather than a constitutional amendment because "ending birthright citizenship through statute makes sense because it’s easier to do." When the framers wrote Article V, I'm pretty sure their intent in making the amendment process so arduous was not so lawmakers would just give up and pass unconstitutional laws without worrying about having to actually amend the Constitution.
