4 ms·

Ummmm, Constitution before Amendment for anything explicitly stated … unless explicitly ratified by Congress and 3/5th of all states and signed by a president.

Ummmm, Constitution before Amendment for anything explicitly stated … unless explicitly ratified by Congress and 3/5th of all states and signed by a president. See any amendment impacting age of president, vice president, or congresscritters? Besides, clearly-defined elected Federal office is a privilege, not a first-class citizen nor a rights, much less citizen-related. Furthermore, only the 7th Federal District ruled like you advocate. None of the remaining 12 districts agree with this and only one ruled against it. IMHO, Supreme Court will likely vote this down given leaning 1-12 opinion count but a third district probably needs to chime in with any ruling on this before SCOTUS can take it up and put it on their docket. But even so if it should get ruled in favor, it remains a far, far, far-away tenuous claim toward an age-nostic but voter-elected president/VP/Congress of what are already well-defined clearly-concise Constitutional job descriptions. Besides, 14th Amendment is an instruction toward the 50 states and not toward Federal. See “No state shall …” part of the 14th. Nothing amendment, as currently written and ratified, would be able to touch those said Federal job descriptions. Sorry. Source: Levin v. Madigan, 692 F.3d 607, 615-22 (7th Cir. 2012).

erichocean 4y ago
Marriage is also a privilege, not a right. And yet…the 14th Amendment (and CRA) still applies, so…gay marriage is the law of the land. All adult, non-felon American citizens legally have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges regardless of their age, sex, country of origin, marriage status, etc., etc., etc. It's 2022 and that's the law. Why would you think it would be anything else?
- hirundo 4y ago
  Because of Article II section 1 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. And the lack of an amendment explicitly changing that.
  - erichocean 4y ago
    > And the lack of an amendment explicitly changing that. The 14th Amendment (and the CRA) didn't explicitly change the definition of marriage, either. You are hung up on technicalities that the Supreme Court has already rejected many, many times.
    - batch12 4y ago
      Does the constitution explicitly define marriage?
    - egberts1 4y ago
      Constitution has a very, very concise job description for these Federal offices. Marriage, not so much.
- Overtonwindow 4y ago
  I would contend that marriage is neither a privilege, nor a right. Government recognition of your marriage is a privilege. In theory you can jump the fence with anybody and say we are married. With contractual law what it is today, you don’t need government recognition for your marriage to be valid.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    I might argue, marriage is a privilege bestowed by only by the states and maritime captains. Then there is this definition of a common-law wife that varied wildly amongst 50 states and territories.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Marriage is also a privilege, not a right. While, of course, the current activist Supreme Court might change the law, marriage has been recognized not only as a right but as a fundamental right since (as at the latest) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
  - abigail95 4y ago
    That is not a right to marry. That case is overturning a 90 year old precedent based on 14A equal protection.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > That is not a right to marry. The court’s opinion in the case disagrees, stating “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
- mywittyname 4y ago
  > Why would you think it would be anything else? The age limit for the presidency is explicit in the Constitution. It may be implicitly overturned by 14A, but there's an argument that authors of 14A knew about the presidential age limit, and chose not to overturn it explicitly, thus, the age limit for the presidency stands as an exception. I'm not claiming to be correct, nor you to be wrong, but I don't see this as being as cut-and-dry as you do. I don't see current SCOTUS majorly agreeing with your assessment, especially by those who claim to be constitution originalists. If I were on SCOTUS, I would concur with your argument.

erichocean 4y ago

Marriage is also a privilege, not a right. And yet…the 14th Amendment (and CRA) still applies, so…gay marriage is the law of the land. All adult, non-felon American citizens legally have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges regardless of their age, sex, country of origin, marriage status, etc., etc., etc. It's 2022 and that's the law. Why would you think it would be anything else?

hirundo 4y ago
Because of Article II section 1 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. And the lack of an amendment explicitly changing that.
- erichocean 4y ago
  > And the lack of an amendment explicitly changing that. The 14th Amendment (and the CRA) didn't explicitly change the definition of marriage, either. You are hung up on technicalities that the Supreme Court has already rejected many, many times.
  - batch12 4y ago
    Does the constitution explicitly define marriage?
  - egberts1 4y ago
    Constitution has a very, very concise job description for these Federal offices. Marriage, not so much.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
I would contend that marriage is neither a privilege, nor a right. Government recognition of your marriage is a privilege. In theory you can jump the fence with anybody and say we are married. With contractual law what it is today, you don’t need government recognition for your marriage to be valid.
- egberts1 4y ago
  I might argue, marriage is a privilege bestowed by only by the states and maritime captains. Then there is this definition of a common-law wife that varied wildly amongst 50 states and territories.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Marriage is also a privilege, not a right. While, of course, the current activist Supreme Court might change the law, marriage has been recognized not only as a right but as a fundamental right since (as at the latest) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
- abigail95 4y ago
  That is not a right to marry. That case is overturning a 90 year old precedent based on 14A equal protection.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That is not a right to marry. The court’s opinion in the case disagrees, stating “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
mywittyname 4y ago
> Why would you think it would be anything else? The age limit for the presidency is explicit in the Constitution. It may be implicitly overturned by 14A, but there's an argument that authors of 14A knew about the presidential age limit, and chose not to overturn it explicitly, thus, the age limit for the presidency stands as an exception. I'm not claiming to be correct, nor you to be wrong, but I don't see this as being as cut-and-dry as you do. I don't see current SCOTUS majorly agreeing with your assessment, especially by those who claim to be constitution originalists. If I were on SCOTUS, I would concur with your argument.