Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mbrfl
The item I cited is not a right. It’s a requirement.

This is a distinction but there is no underlying difference. It'll take a Constitutional amendment to change anything spelled out in the original Constitution or its existing amendments.
44 posted on 05/20/2026 5:27:52 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: AnotherUnixGeek
This is a distinction but there is no underlying difference. It'll take a Constitutional amendment to change anything spelled out in the original Constitution or its existing amendments.

I don’t know, it seems to me that, hypothetically speaking, legislatively imposing a requirement to be a citizen for 10 years, or 25 years, etc. would not affect the constitutional requirement to have been a citizen for AT LEAST 7 years. Ten years IS at least seven years, as is 25, for example. A requirement to be a natural-born citizen, in concert with the constitutional requirement to be at least 21 years of age, would work mathematically as well, though it would probably draw much stronger scrutiny since the requirement to have been a citizen for “at least” seven years strongly implies that the authors did not intend for this level of public service to be limited in that way.

51 posted on 05/20/2026 5:37:49 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

>>”This is a distinction but there is no underlying difference”

Of course there’s a difference. Any lawyer can tell you the difference is between a right and a requirement. But forget that. But you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that a right and a requirement are two different things. All it takes is a modicum of intelligence and familiarity with the English language.

If being a citizen for seven years gave you the Constitutional right to be a member of Congress the article in question would say something along the lines of:

“Any Person is qualified to be a Representative who shall have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who is when elected, an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

but it doesn’t say that. It says:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Don’t be stupid.


52 posted on 05/20/2026 5:38:59 PM PDT by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

>>”It’ll take a Constitutional amendment to change anything spelled out in the original Constitution or its existing amendments.”

The legislation proposed by Mace doesn’t change the Constitution. The requirement in Article I Section 2 would still remain. All that would change would be that additional requirements would have been added, legislatively. Don’t double down on stupid. Just admit you were wrong and made a mistake, and move on.


54 posted on 05/20/2026 5:46:19 PM PDT by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson