The 35 years of age requirement in Article II, section one, clause 5 was ratified in an era when the average life expectancy was around 35 years or so.
Would you disregard that provision absent a constitutional amendment too???
The constitution was never intended to be a menu. Every one of it’s requirements are essential.
The US Constitution was never intended to be a buffet menu.....
where we pick and choose (and adhere to) only what we personally like.
It is the nation’s secular version of the “Ten Commandments.”
Every one of it’s requirements are essential.
The 35 years of age requirement in Article II, section one, clause 5 was ratified in an era when the average life expectancy was around 35 years or so.
Would you disregard that provision absent a constitutional amendment too???
The constitution was never intended to be a menu. Every one of it’s requirements are essential.
Except that the definition of natural born citizen is not spelled out as explicitly as the age requirement in the Constitution.
The average life expectancy was low because of infant mortality, once you survived infancy you had a good chance of living into your 60s, 70s, and 80s. The age requirement was based on something else, probably maturity is my guess.
The two-parent born in the USA “requirement” was never there. That is based on a bad translation of Vattel made AFTER the Constitution was ratified. Vattel used ‘indigenous’ and ‘native’, not NBC.