Would you agree with this premise?

[Californiadreaming]

Basically, this article makes an argument that the 5th Amendment (in its current interpretation) has already implicitly repealed the natural-born citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency:

http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=lawreview

As for me, I voted Yes. After all, if one embraces the idea of a "Living Constitution" (as I myself lean in favor of doing), then I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly earlier parts of the U.S. Constitution should be incapable of being implicitly repealed by later parts of the U.S. Constitution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not sure, but I'd never thought of that and it's actually worth considering.

[Californiadreaming]

Not sure, but I'd never thought of that and it's actually worth considering.

Yeah--after all, if the current interpretations of two parts of the U.S. Constitution are incompatible with one another, then it appears to make logical sense for the later part of the U.S. Constitution to implicitly repeal the earlier part of the U.S. Constitution.

[muon2]

It's an interesting premise, but there is a counter example in the one-man-one vote decision for congressional districts (Wesberry v Sanders). SCOTUS did not apply it to the Senate, though by the logic of the article it seems they should have. Since SCOTUS did not apply equal protection to the Senate, I think they also would not apply it to qualifications for federal offices, including requiring presidents to be natural born citizens.

[Weiner/Holder]

Go ahead and say you plead the 5th when asked as a presidential candidate and see if it works with voters over 25.  Presidents and those running for office sacrifice certain personal information to give the voters a better idea about who they are. It's part of the gig.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, I actually misread this and thought you were talking about the 14th Amendment (because it provided a comprehensive definition of citizenship that voided the term "natural born citizen" of any substantive meaning). No idea how I made that mistake, but I think it would make more sense than the 5th.

[Californiadreaming]

Oh, I actually misread this and thought you were talking about the 14th Amendment (because it provided a comprehensive definition of citizenship that voided the term "natural born citizen" of any substantive meaning). No idea how I made that mistake, but I think it would make more sense than the 5th.

Doesn't the 14th Amendment only apply to the states, though?

[Californiadreaming]

It's an interesting premise, but there is a counter example in the one-man-one vote decision for congressional districts (Wesberry v Sanders). SCOTUS did not apply it to the Senate, though by the logic of the article it seems they should have. Since SCOTUS did not apply equal protection to the Senate, I think they also would not apply it to qualifications for federal offices, including requiring presidents to be natural born citizens.

There is a difference between applying equal protection to elections and applying equal protection to the qualifications for governmental offices, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, I actually misread this and thought you were talking about the 14th Amendment (because it provided a comprehensive definition of citizenship that voided the term "natural born citizen" of any substantive meaning). No idea how I made that mistake, but I think it would make more sense than the 5th.

Doesn't the 14th Amendment only apply to the states, though?

Uh, no? It's been used in relation to federal law countless times.

[Californiadreaming]

Oh, I actually misread this and thought you were talking about the 14th Amendment (because it provided a comprehensive definition of citizenship that voided the term "natural born citizen" of any substantive meaning). No idea how I made that mistake, but I think it would make more sense than the 5th.

Doesn't the 14th Amendment only apply to the states, though?

Uh, no? It's been used in relation to federal law countless times.

Very stupid question, but can you please provide a couple of quick and notable exceptions of this?