Agreed. BUT, should we allow someone who is 34 years old to be president? 33?, 32? Someone who has resided here 13 years? 12?, 11? You see the problem. Well, they ALMOST qualify. It's only a little sin. The constitution is the line. If we don't like it, we can change it by constitutional amendment. Hard to do, you say? Well, if it's important enough, it should be worth the trouble. That's the whole idea behind making it hard. Yet, we have passed, then repealed, amendments before. Maybe we made it too easy. We need to uphold the constitution to the letter of the law. It has done us well for over 200 years. It is under assault more than ever now. We should not weaken it further. We need to INSIST it is the law of the land as written and amended.
Agreed.”
Thank you!
“BUT, should we allow someone who is 34 years old to be president? 33?, 32?”
No! Though I have met 30 year olds more mature and wise than some that have reached 45 years....LOLOLOLOL
“Someone who has resided here 13 years? 12?, 11?”
No! Not at all!
I could argue that since the minimum age for the Presidency is 45 years old, and that the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency is 14 years residency.... that the intent of the Founders was that a President must have spent his entire adult life living in the US....just an exercise in logic as applied to the Founders written words and their intent..... (45-14 = 21 years or their entire life after reaching adulthood) was 14 years intended as a “Floor” not a “ceiling?”..........hhhmmmmm.....
Of course, if that were the intent, no veteran, like Esienhower for example, would ever be eligible for the Presidency because of his overseas service.......hhhhhmmmmm
“If we don’t like it, we can change it by constitutional amendment.”
About the only thing I agree with the left is that the Constitution is a “living document” ....Unfortunately they incorrectly believe that it can be changed by judicial fiat, while I say that the Founders left us a living document (The Constitution) because they allow future Americans to modify it by amendment (only!)
“Tough to do?”
Yes, by intent and design! Those Founders were not fools!
The Constitution, if modified by whim or populism, as the left is constantly attempting to do, (witness Obama LOLOLOLOL no, not funny at all!) would quickly devolve into a meaningless / worthless scrap of paper.... Not something either of us would wish!
“We need to uphold the Constitution to the letter of the law. It has done us well for over 200 years. It is under assault more than ever now. We should not weaken it further. We need to INSIST it is the law of the land as written and amended.”
Despite some hyperbole in the above, we have no conflict of opinion (or at least very very little)........now if we can just get the courts to “apply” the laws as the Founders intended and wrote......
As a note I always cringe when people, even people like Rush Limbaugh, state that the job of the Courts is to “interprete” the law. Hand to forehead......
Holy bat poop! I always thought “Interprete” meant to give new meaning (to something like the Constitution) that did not exist before...... See above about the left’s view on the Constitution as a living document.... I have always held that the Courts job was to “apply” the Law to a given situation, taking into account both the written text, and the legislative intent. (Intent is the reason that “The Federalist Papers” are so important when reading/understanding the Constitution and the reason the papers were written.... ie to establish “Intent.”)
Where we do disagree, is that I do not think that the intent of the Founders was to exclude someone like McCain from seeking and obtaining the Presidency .... Note that I did/do not like/support McCain, (voted for Palin) either as a US Senator or as a President, and I like Obama by magnatudes of order even less........ I would have been comfortable, and happy, to have seen both of them found ineligible from the very start......