[awake-n-angry]

“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.

[nathanbedford]

Actually it is the opposite argument but it does not vitiate my point. The people in California were voting on a constitutional provision as I understand it in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution.

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.

[cowboyway]

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.

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?