You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #49: Where one makes a "principled distinction" depends upon one's principles [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Where one makes a "principled distinction" depends upon one's principles
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 08:25 PM by jberryhill
And I fail to see why you insist upon making rhetorical personal commentary.

My name is attached to every post. No need to guess my politics:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/donor_lookup.php?name...

So quit with the well-poisoning.

You say that "electing the too-young" triggers express Constitutional language, but then you say that its up to the voters to decide which language they want to be "restrained" by.

If I and a majority of voters believe that Jehovah is over 35 years of age, has resided in the US for 14 years, and is a citizen of the US, then we're good to go, yes?

Stating, as a matter of historical fact, that ineligible persons were elected to office and served is unimpressive. People have robbed banks and gotten away with it, too. That does not entitle me to rob a bank. The point is whether and under what circumstances their eligibility was or was not challenged and by whom. This notion of "historical fact as legal precedent" is quite the Scaliesque line of reasoning, no?

I agree with the general proposition that the Constitution is intended to limit government power, and that the first job of government is the protection and preservation of our rights. Among other things, the Constitution sets forth the process for amending it. The "express Constitutional language" can itself be changed by the sovereign electorate. There is not some sort of "de facto" amendment process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC