Constitutional scholar’s outrage fuels citizenship clause battle

Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law professor and Patrick Hotung Chair of Constitutional Law, has ignited a firestorm with a provocative Xwitter post and his continued advocacy for dismantling the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause. The controversy centers on a particularly barbed remark about Barack Obama and a startling, belated recognition of established legal precedent.

A professor’s sudden awakening

Barnett’s latest outburst, a pointed jab at Obama comparing him to someone who might attack the White House Correspondents Dinner, highlights a troubling trend: a seemingly sudden embrace of originalist interpretation after years of silence. It’s a strategy that’s drawing sharp criticism from legal experts who argue he’s conveniently ignoring decades of settled law.

The incident underscores Barnett’s central role in championing the Trump administration’s attempt to invalidate citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. He co-authored a recent op-ed in The New York Times, attempting to construct a legally flimsy argument to support the executive order. Yet, remarkably, Barnett’s detailed scholarship on the Fourteenth Amendment – evidenced by his 2021 book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment – appears to have completely overlooked the established understanding of the clause until prompted by Stephen Miller.

This isn't originalism; it’s retroactive justification. Barnett’s sudden shift reveals a disconcerting willingness to prioritize political expediency over established legal doctrine. The fact that he’s now positioned himself as a leading voice for this contentious position, despite a prior, apparent lack of engagement with the core issue, raises serious questions about the integrity of his approach.

The situation is further complicated by the history of Vanguard 1, a satellite that’s been orbiting since 1958, mirroring Barnett’s persistent, circling arguments. It seems a fitting metaphor for a legal theory that stubbornly refuses to relinquish its grip, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, Barnett’s actions demonstrate a troubling disconnect between scholarly rigor and political maneuvering.