Which Tribe are You?

From Powerline Blog:

But right now Trump and lots of liberals are seizing upon Tribe’s tendentious opinion that Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution and is therefore ineligible to be president. Actually Tribe’s argument is slightly more subtle—that Cruz’s own constitutional “originalism” would call for a narrow reading of the “natural born citizen” clause, especially if, like Cruz (and Trump) you challenge the “birthright citizenship” reading of the 14th Amendment. But this argument is ridiculous, too. I think Cruz easily satisfies Blackstone’s common law understanding of what “natural born citizen” means, and in any case common law is not constitutional law.
..............................

But second, for liberals who are hanging on Tribe’s birther opinion, let’s also note that Tribe has argued, in federal court, that Obama’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” is unconstitutional. So liberals: if Tribe is right about Cruz, why isn’t he also right about the EPA’s ukase? He’s your favorite con law guy after all. Expect to hear crickets chirping on this question.

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

Bad news from HuffPo contributor -- Changing the Constitution to end birthright citizenship would be unconstitutional

From Hot Air:

I’m torn between thinking this is one of the most inane legal analyses ever to come out of a lefty blog and that it’s simply the logical conclusion of the “Living Constitution” ethos. If the Constitution is just a vehicle for judges to impose their moral preferences on the majority, why should they let a constitutional amendment stand in the way? If America passed an amendment tomorrow overturning the gay-marriage ruling in Obergefell, I’d say there’s a nonzero chance that some liberal judge somewhere would decide that that amendment simply can’t be read consistently with the Equal Protection Clause and therefore is “moot” or whatever.

It turns out that the very idea of amending the Constitution to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — would probably be found unconstitutional. The same would be true for a Republican-backed bill with a similar goal that’s pending in Congress…

Sorry, but you can't use that argument. It's been tried in California and it's always a loser.