Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s (R-NC) lawyer, defending his client against a bid to get him kicked off the ballot for helping fuel the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, made the argument on Tuesday that states don’t have the authority to enforce qualification requirements for congressional candidates -– including age limits.
During a hearing at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the attorney, James Bopp Jr., argued that only Congress, not the states, can decide whether a person is qualified to run.
Wait, huh? I thought the Goopers were all about states having more decision powers than the federal government…
What’s that you say? Cawthorne is an embarrassment to the Goopers? Is that even possible??
The thing is, Maddy could been a star, but Maddy like his idol Trump just won’t put the work into what the job calls for.
The simplest thing Maddy could have done is not act like an out of control entitled child.
“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.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 2
It’s right there in the Constitution, ya fucking meatball.
Sure, but 25 years meant something different in the 1700s. We have to examine original intent in the context of how colonists measured time. How accurate were their clocks or calendars? Do we know for sure a day was 24 hours in 1787? Was a year 365 days? People allege they were, but do they have a secret agenda?
Does Cawthorn survive the opposition from other Republicans, Tillis most notably? It’s a measure of democracy’s decline in places like South Carolina that he very well might still win.
Well if we look at it with an Originalists interpretation like the right-wing hacks on the SCOTUS try and do, and calculate what 25 as a percentage of what the life-expectancy in the 18th century was, doesn’t that mean that today you would have to be over 46 years old to run for Congress?
Doesn’t his argument logic lead to the same conclusion regarding voters? I mean, under his interpretation, could states really enforce minimum age or residency requirements for voters in a federal election?
He’s technically correct about somebody from South Carolina filing to run for a seat in North Carolina. It would pass constitutional muster so long as he moves to NC before he’s actually elected. That being said, it’s still a stupid argument.