If there were Pulitzer Prize for trolling and subtweeting, Matt Yglesias would probably be the first recipient. Matt decided to have some fun at the expense of right-wingers who (1) claim to believe that judges should interpret the Constitution according to the original meaning of the text rather than flexibly to adjust to new conditions and (2) want to enforce, or even tighten, existing immigration laws.
He posted a thread on Twitter, cleverly and accurately parodying the standard “originalist” patter:
Personal policy preferences aside, as an originalist who calls balls and strikes rather than legislating from the bench, my staring at old texts and series of ouija board sessions with James Madison leads me to the conclusion that ICE is unconstitutional. I understand that conservative “living constitutionalists” believe that changing circumstances require us to create an agency that the Founders would have deemed terrifying and incomprehensible, but the right solution is to pass a constitutional amendment. Actually, not only is ICE unconstitutional the constitution pretty clearly requires open borders, authorizing congress to set rules about naturalization but not to limit entry into the country.
Continue reading “Does the Constitution authorize immigration restriction?”