“I suppose the thing that disturbs me most is his argument that majoritarianism should trump the Constitution.”
____________
This is the same argument that is being made by Gay Marriage proponents in California. Who cares that the people have voted for a ban by wide margins, the court should over turn the will of the people. Slippery slope.
I would have no constitutional objection if the rats sought to amend the constitution on the federal level to change the natural born citizen requirement. But once a provision is in the Constitution one has to look to the Constitution itself (not David Horowitz) to find out how to amend it.
If you're willing to throw away constitutional eligibility rules then the 'will of the people' could result in the election of anybody to the office of president.
For example: Let's say the will of the people resulted in the election of someone who was only 32 years old. According to the constitution, he is ineligible for the office of the presidency.
Just what, in your opinion should happen in this case?