No Celebration of Constitutional Principles

Speaking of politically expedient, I can't let the moment pass without dissenting from the assertion by Justices Donald Trump and Rand Paul that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

"The 14th Amendment says very, very clearly to a lot of great legal scholars -- not television scholars, but legal scholars -- that [the argument for birthright citizenship] is wrong," Trump said. "It can be corrected with an act of Congress, probably doesn't even need that."

Paul concurred. "Donald Trump has a bit of a point here," he said. "There's never been a direct Supreme Court case on people who were here illegally, whether or not their kids are citizens."

Try Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 case guaranteeing the right to education for the children of illegal immigrants. The outcome divided the justices but all nine agreed that the fact of parents' immigration status was immaterial to their children's citizenship. "The Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state," the dissenters wrote.

So much for television scholars.

The candidates' consternation over the court makes sense. By Election Day 2016, three justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- will be 80 or over.

Given the likelihood of vacancies, a Democratic president would have the chance to maintain or, with a Scalia retirement, slightly enhance the ideological status quo. A Republican president would have the prospect of transforming it, for decades to come.

This demographic reality raises the stakes, and therefore the temperature. It explains the vehemence of the debate, but not the disregard, whether willful or ignorant, of fundamental constitutional principles. Hope you had a happy Constitution Day, everyone.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.