[Gelato]

Fighting with all you've got is OK, so long as you keep it within the bounds of the framers intent. 11th hour move-ins were clearly not their intent, otherwise why even bother with a residecny clause to begin with. What's the point of winning the battle if you're just going to lose your principles along the way, we're supposed to be the party of adherance to the Constitution and the intent of the founders, and it's all the more pathetic that the person being floated as a undeserving candidate should know better.

But this IS within the bounds of what the Framers intended. Otherwise, they would have written a stricter requirement in the Constitution.

The Founders left it to the people to decide at the ballot box. If you cannot in good conscience vote for an outsider, then don't. It all depends on what's most important to you.

I'm not one of those people who kicks and screams at those who vote third-party or who stay home on election day. I say, weigh the pros and cons, and make the choice for yourself. If residency is the litmus test for you, so be it.
.

[discostu]

If they'd wanted peoplee to be able to run for office in any old place then why did they even have a residence requirement. No it's obvious they wanted a states representatives to be valid representatives of THAT state, which is why they put a residency requirement in. People moving in on election day cannot possibly be valid representatives of that state. That's why we call them carpetbaggers.

Actually no, originally the Founders left the Senators entirely up to the state legislature, it wasn't up to the voters at all. There's something to be said for that.