{"id":2586252,"date":"2026-04-01T17:11:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T21:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/"},"modified":"2026-04-01T17:15:25","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T21:15:25","slug":"dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/","title":{"rendered":"The \u2018Same Constitution\u2019 Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fdear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2586252&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Federalist article analyzes the supreme Court\u2019s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, wich challenge the president\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >2025 order restricting birthright citizenship<\/a>, focusing on Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019 remark that there is a \u201csame Constitution\u201d in a \u201cnew world.\u201d While the Solicitor General argued that the 14th Amendment\u2019s reach must adapt to modern circumstances, the piece contends that Roberts\u2019 line, though praised by some as originalist, actually undercuts originalism by suggesting a flexible approach to an amendment not designed for today\u2019s issues.It argues that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/birthright-citizenship-faces-first-supreme-court-test-in-more-than-100-years\/\" title=\"... faces first Supreme Court test in more than 100 years\">extending birthright citizenship<\/a> to children born to undocumented migrants or birth-tourism participants does not align with the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment, since those scenarios did not exist when the amendment was drafted and were not foreseen by its framers. The article notes Wong Kim Ark as a past precedent but maintains that it did not decide on citizenship for children born to illegal residents or birth-tourism entrants, and thus cannot justify broad extensions today. It concludes that the core debate is whether current practice reflects the framers\u2019 intent, emphasizing that the Constitution\u2019s text has not changed and that originalist interpretation should guide decisions rather than retrofitting the law to contemporary politics.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-body body-md bdr-top-black pt-30\">\n<div class=\"row justify-content-center\">\n<div class=\"col-12\">\n<figure class=\"article-thumbnail mb-30 mb-sm-60\">\n<div class=\"article-thumbnail-caption d-flex align-items-center justify-content-md-end label-xs mt-15\">         <i class=\"mdi mdi-camera me-10\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Image Credit<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/fischerfotos\/7432022562\">Mark Fischer\/Flickr<\/a> \/ <a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/2.0\/\">CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>       <\/div>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"article-share text-center article-share-simple\">\n<h5 class=\"label-sm mb-10\">Share<\/h5>\n<ul class=\"article-share-list list-unstyled m-0 p-0\">\n<li class=\"article-share-facebook m-0\">       <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer\/sharer.php?u=https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/01\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/\" target=\"_blank\">         <i class=\"mdi mdi-facebook\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Share Article on Facebook<\/span>       <\/a>     <\/li>\n<li class=\"article-share-twitter m-0\">       <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=Dear%20Justice%20Roberts:%20The%20%E2%80%98Same%20Constitution%E2%80%99%20Would%20Never%20Authorize%20Anchor%20Babies&amp;url=https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/01\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/\" target=\"_blank\">         <i class=\"mdi mdi-twitter\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Share Article on Twitter<\/span>       <\/a>     <\/li>\n<li class=\"article-share-truth-social m-0\">       <a href=\"https:\/\/truthsocial.com\/share?title=Dear%20Justice%20Roberts:%20The%20%E2%80%98Same%20Constitution%E2%80%99%20Would%20Never%20Authorize%20Anchor%20Babies&amp;url=https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/01\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/\" target=\"_blank\">         <svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" fill=\"currentColor\" style=\"width:36px;height:auto;\" viewbox=\"0 0 92 93\"><path d=\"M69.444 55.716H56.772v10.37h12.672zM64.487 37.795V27.32H38.666v38.664h13.18v-28.19zM21.05 27.321h12.653v10.471H21.051z\" https:><\/path><\/svg>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Share Article on Truth Social<\/span>       <\/a>     <\/li>\n<li class=\"article-share-link m-0\">       <button data-clipboard-text=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/01\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/\" data-tooltip-content=\"Copied!\" class=\"clip tooltip\">         <i class=\"mdi mdi-link-variant\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Copy Article Link<\/span>       <\/button>     <\/li>\n<li class=\"article-share-email m-0\">       <a href=\"mailto:?subject=Dear%20Justice%20Roberts:%20The%20%E2%80%98Same%20Constitution%E2%80%99%20Would%20Never%20Authorize%20Anchor%20Babies&amp;body=%20https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/01\/dear-justice-roberts-the-same-constitution-would-never-authorize-anchor-babies\/\" target=\"_blank\">         <i class=\"mdi mdi-email\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>         <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Share Article via Email<\/span>       <\/a>     <\/li>\n<li class=\"article-share-email m-0\"><span class=\"printfriendly pf-button  pf-alignleft\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/thefederalist.com\/#\" rel=\"nofollow\" onclick=\"window.print(); return false;\" title=\"Printer Friendly, PDF &amp; Email\"><span id=\"printfriendly-text2\" class=\"pf-button-text\"><i class=\"mdi mdi-printer\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<p>Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts&rsquo; &ldquo;same Constitution&rdquo; line during Wednesday&rsquo;s oral arguments over birthright citizenship at first sounded like a defense of originalism. But in fact, it was the exact opposite.<\/p>\n<p>The high court heard oral arguments Wednesday in <em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, a case challenging the president&rsquo;s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing for the administration, pointed out that the world that existed when the 14th Amendment was ratified is not the world that currently exists. &ldquo;Eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen,&rdquo; Sauer pointed out.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2 d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2077852099\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1463670073398-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Roberts responded with what was seemingly an attempt to posture himself as a principled originalist, saying that while it may be a &ldquo;new world, it&rsquo;s the same Constitution.&rdquo; His response met with adoration across the spectrum.<\/p>\n<p>The Cato Institute&rsquo;s Thomas Berry <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/Thomas_A_Berry\/status\/2039392783325073878?s=20\">said<\/a> Roberts&rsquo; line was the &ldquo;line of the morning.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;That really does sum up why the government&rsquo;s policy-based arguments had no bearing on the constitutional question. Today&rsquo;s oral argument focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment&rsquo;s text, which is the correct approach.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Michigan&rsquo;s Ottawa County GOP <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/OttawaGOP\/status\/2039394226396418457?s=20\">said<\/a>, &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a tough argument our side is making &hellip; Suddenly, the conservative position is that we&rsquo;re no longer originalists? The Solicitor General should not have said, &lsquo;It&rsquo;s a new world.&rsquo; Roberts: &lsquo;It&rsquo;s the same Constitution.&rsquo; We cannot expect a majority, originalist court to suddenly change on a dime.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Reason reporter Billy Binion <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/billybinion\/status\/2039356145870016714?s=46\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lauded<\/a> the line as his &ldquo;favorite Supreme Court exchange in recent memory.&rdquo; &ldquo;Into my veins,&rdquo; he added.<\/p>\n<p>Adam Cochran <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/adamscochran\/status\/2039366248245404021?s=20\">called<\/a> Roberts&rsquo; one-liner &ldquo;fantastic&rdquo; and said it shows Roberts is &ldquo;capable of having a spine.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>But the idea that the &ldquo;same Constitution&rdquo; would <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/kristen-welkers-question-about-citizenship-misses-the-point\/\" title=\"Kristen Welker\u2019s Question About ... Misses The Point\">grant birthright citizenship<\/a> to children of Third World illegal aliens or patrons of birth tourism companies is not originalist. In fact, it&rsquo;s the opposite.<\/p>\n<p>Originalists are supposed to ask what the Constitution&rsquo;s words were understood to mean at the time they were adopted. The idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment would have understood the amendment to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or customers of a birthright tourism company is risible because such problems did not exist &mdash; they are indeed part of a new world. Retrofitting the 14th Amendment to cover unprecedented circumstances is not originalist.<\/p>\n<p>A few decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court issued a decision in <em>United States v. Wong Kim Ark<\/em>. The case involved a man born in the United States to Chinese parents who were not citizens but were legally residing in the United States. The court ruled in his favor. But the case did not rule on whether children born to parents <em>illegally <\/em>residing in the country are granted citizenship, nor did it rule on whether the children of temporary visitors who come to the U.S. via birth tourism companies to give birth and then return to their native countries satisfy the criteria for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Extending the 14th Amendment &mdash; or <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>&rsquo;s holding &mdash; to apply to millions of illegal aliens&rsquo; children is not originalist by any standard. If the original meaning of the text is supposed to be the guide &mdash; and the original text did not in any way foresee mass illegal migration or birth tourism &mdash; then it&rsquo;s not originalist to broaden the scope of the amendment to fit the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/top-biden-legal-ally-says-kamala-harris-cant-break-a-tie-for-bidens-scotus-nominee\/\" title=\"Top Biden Legal Ally Says Kamala Harris Can\u2019t Break A Tie For Biden\u2019s SCOTUS Nominee\">current political circumstances<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The Constitution has not changed &mdash; nor is that the debate. The debate is whether the current application of the Constitution reflects what the framers originally had in mind when drafting it. <\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">\n<div class=\"article-author-description fst-italic\">      Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-author mt-30 mt-sm-60 pt-30 bdr-top-bold-black\">\n<div class=\"row g-0 align-items-center\">\n<div class=\"col-12 col-md-6\">\n<div class=\"article-author-profile d-flex align-items-center justify-content-center justify-content-md-start\">\n<div class=\"article-author-details\">\n<div class=\"label-md\">Brianna Lyman<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-author-twitter label-sm d-flex align-items-center mt-10\">             <i class=\"mdi mdi-twitter me-5\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>             <span class=\"visually-hidden\">Visit on Twitter<\/span>            <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/briannalyman2\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"text-decoration-none\">@briannalyman2<\/a>           <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"col-12 col-md-6 d-flex justify-content-center justify-content-md-end mt-15 mt-md-0\">        <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/author\/briannalyman\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">More Articles<\/a>     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"article-tags bdr-top-black mt-30 mt-sm-60 pt-15 pt-md-45\">\n<ul class=\"list-unstyled d-flex flex-wrap align-items-center mb-0 mx-n10 p-0\">\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/14th-amendment\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">14th amendment<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/birth-tourism\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">birth tourism<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/birthright-citizenship\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">Birthright Citizenship<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">Donald Trump<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/john-roberts\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">John Roberts<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">Supreme Court<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"mt-10 mx-10\"><a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/wong-kim-ark\/\" class=\"btn btn-black btn-small\">Wong Kim Ark<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here\u2019s a paraphrase of the main ideas:<\/p>\n<p>In the Supreme Court\u2019s Wednesday arguments on birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara), Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019 remark that there is a \u201csame Constitution\u201d despite a \u201cnew world\u201d initially read as a defense of originalism. Yet the article argues this line actually undermines originalism by implying today\u2019s policies could be justified by a rigid reading of the text. The administration\u2019s solicitor general argued that the world has changed since the 14th Amendment\u2019s adoption, noting that billions of people are a short trip away from producing a U.S. citizen child. Roberts\u2019 reply-stating the Constitution remains the same-was praised by many as a principled stand for originalism.<\/p>\n<p>Critics and commentators counter that claiming a \u201csame Constitution\u201d supports citizenship for the children of illegal migrants or birth-tourism clients is not truly originalist. True originalism asks what the text\u2019s words were understood to mean at the time of ratification; the framers could not have foreseen mass illegal immigration or birth tourism, so extending the amendment to cover such situations would retrofit the text to modern problems. Although Wong Kim Ark did recognize citizenship for certain children born to non-citizen parents, the decision did not address children of illegal entrants or birth-tourism scenarios, and thus extending the 14th Amendment in those ways would not be originalist. The debate, therefore, centers on whether today\u2019s application reflects the framers\u2019 intent, not on changing the Constitution itself.<\/p>\n<p>If you\u2019d like, I can also provide a very short version (e.g., a 55-character summary)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":2586253,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/7432022562_ffb903102e_k-e1775071894856.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546,33651],"tags":[76984,74405,8062,71636,3813],"class_list":["post-2586252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","category-the-western-journal","tag-anchor-babies-2","tag-birthright-citizenship-2","tag-constitution","tag-constitutional-law-2","tag-immigration"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/7432022562_ffb903102e_k-e1775071894856.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2586252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2586252"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2586252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2586256,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2586252\/revisions\/2586256"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2586253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2586252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2586252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2586252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}