3 ms·

> Not sure how anyone could reasonably interpret this as affecting presidential eligibility. You could say the same thing about gay marriage. Obviously, the Su

> Not sure how anyone could reasonably interpret this as affecting presidential eligibility. You could say the same thing about gay marriage. Obviously, the Supreme Court…disagrees. The Civil Rights Act clarified the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and they now go together whenever the Supreme Court is deciding what the Constitution requires/allows.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> You could say the same thing about gay marriage. Obviously, the Supreme Court…disagrees. How so? Marriages are performed under state law, not federal law. How does the court ruling on gay marriage demonstrate that the 14th Amendment applies to the federal government, rather than (as it explicitly says) the states?
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  One might also note that both the federal government and individual states have age limits on things like getting married, having sex, driving a car, buying alcohol, voting, etc. To the best of my knowledge, no such age limit has ever been successfully challenged on 14th Amendment grounds. Can you provide a citation to one?
zuminator 4y ago
Gay marriage and eligibility for office aren't remotely comparable. There is nothing in the US Constitution that explicitly denies marriage to any class of people, therefore the 14th amendment can claim to be applicable, whereas the Constitution specifically sets 35 as the minimum age to be appointed as president, and this has never been repealed. Nor is there any chance that the so-called originalists who make up our current Supreme Court would reject an explicit limitation in the Constitution for an uncertain interpretation of the language in the 14th amendment. On top of which, the position that the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination is not accurate. (Even the ADEA itself only prohibits age discrimination against individuals 40 and older.) The 14th amendment merely requires that the government have a good reason to discriminate. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) for starters, wherein it was stated that, "The Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope for discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The Constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality." In particular, age related laws generally fall under the "rational basis" standard. Meaning, that the scrutiny of such laws is not as strict as gender and religion related discrimination, but just entails some "rational basis" by the state for the law to pass constitutional muster. One can see this looking by at various policies set by the Federal government. People under 62 may not apply for Social Security Retirement. People over 26 are not covered under the their parents' policies in the Affordable Care Act. Children under 5 can ride WMATA for free in DC.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> You could say the same thing about gay marriage. Obviously, the Supreme Court…disagrees. How so? Marriages are performed under state law, not federal law. How does the court ruling on gay marriage demonstrate that the 14th Amendment applies to the federal government, rather than (as it explicitly says) the states?

Turing_Machine 4y ago
One might also note that both the federal government and individual states have age limits on things like getting married, having sex, driving a car, buying alcohol, voting, etc. To the best of my knowledge, no such age limit has ever been successfully challenged on 14th Amendment grounds. Can you provide a citation to one?

zuminator 4y ago

Gay marriage and eligibility for office aren't remotely comparable. There is nothing in the US Constitution that explicitly denies marriage to any class of people, therefore the 14th amendment can claim to be applicable, whereas the Constitution specifically sets 35 as the minimum age to be appointed as president, and this has never been repealed. Nor is there any chance that the so-called originalists who make up our current Supreme Court would reject an explicit limitation in the Constitution for an uncertain interpretation of the language in the 14th amendment. On top of which, the position that the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination is not accurate. (Even the ADEA itself only prohibits age discrimination against individuals 40 and older.) The 14th amendment merely requires that the government have a good reason to discriminate. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) for starters, wherein it was stated that, "The Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope for discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The Constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality." In particular, age related laws generally fall under the "rational basis" standard. Meaning, that the scrutiny of such laws is not as strict as gender and religion related discrimination, but just entails some "rational basis" by the state for the law to pass constitutional muster. One can see this looking by at various policies set by the Federal government. People under 62 may not apply for Social Security Retirement. People over 26 are not covered under the their parents' policies in the Affordable Care Act. Children under 5 can ride WMATA for free in DC.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]