[Political Junkie Too]

If it had been known when Arthur was in office, there would have been legislation and contemporaneous commentaries, which wouldn't have changed the Constitution, but would have shed some light on in how it was interpreted at the time. There would also have been litigation, which would have set some sort of precedent.

A precedent that would have been in place for today's Supreme Court to refer to.

So, do we owe it to future presidents, courts, and voters to set that precendent once and for all, so it doesn't happen a second (or possibly third) time?

-PJ

[ReignOfError]

That would depend on what sort of precedent it sets. If there’s not a sufficient factual basis for the court to take any action, it wouldn’t be of much value.