So if a 30 year old person is elected and sworn in, a person who is not eligible, and removal can be effected only by impeachment, what then is the purpose of Article II?
The construction you are advancing is absurd and obstructs the purpose of Article II. The Constitution must be construed as a whole and it’s provisions read in a way that is compatible and not contradictory.
The absurdity of your position is abundant: a person who has never been to the United States, who was born 20 years ago in a foreign country to foreign parents but who is popularly elected would magically become eligible by being elected.
The cases you cite are foolish and political. Don’t be blinded by a desired political outcome.
Do you agree that that an ineligible person can not be impeached?
Something about this reminds me of Lance Armstrong.
As I’ve continually said, I DO NOT AGREE that an ineligible person cannot be impeached. Impeachment is a POLITICAL process. Any elected or appointed official whether they are eligible or ineligible can be impeached for any reason. For federal officials what it takes is a majority vote in the House of Representatives to vote out a Bill of Impeachment. As I already said, one of the methods of determining ineligibility is via an impeachment trial however I never said that impeachment is the only method of removing an ineligible person.
There are lots of legal traditions under our system that I find to be, at the least bizarre and at the most, downright insane. For example, Statutes of Limitations. A person commits a crime, everybody acknowledges that they committed the crime yet if prosecution doesn’t begin within a certain time frame, they can get away with committing the crime....YUCK.
And just in case you missed it: I believe that an ineligible person who holds a federal elected or appointed office can be impeached.