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

[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=berryhill,%20john

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.