Textualism Defends Birthright Citizenship

The debate over birthright citizenship has produced no shortage of historical quotations—but are those quotations being interpreted correctly?In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles examines one of the most frequently cited statements from Senator Jacob Howard, the principal Senate sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than arguing politics, he applies traditional canons of statutory construction to the text itself.The episode covers:* Why the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment should be the starting point for any legal analysis.* What “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means under ordinary principles of legal interpretation.* The difference between constitutional text and legislative history.* The Series-Qualifier Canon and the Canon Against Surplusage.* Why Senator Howard’s statement, read according to ordinary English grammar, supports a much narrower exception than many online commentators suggest.* The surprising source of these interpretive rules: Justice Antonin Scalia’s Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.Whether you agree with the outcome or not, legal interpretation requires consistency. Textualism only has value if it is applied the same way regardless of whose argument is being evaluated.If you’re going to claim to be a textualist, you have to follow the rules of textualism. Here’s why Antonin Scalia’s own canons of statutory interpretation undermine a common argument against birthright citizenship. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe