who can be elected, part II

[winterbadger]

The other half of this pondering is that, while the Constitution requires that candidates for the presidency be both natural-born citizens and residents of the US for at least 14 years, it requires candidates for the House and Senate to have been citizens for 7 or 9 years, respectively, and residents of the state they are elected to represent at the time they are elected. I haven't checked all states' election laws, but I would assume that, those requirements being delineated in the Constitution, no state is allowed to add extra conditions except those that directly relate to the process of election (collecting of signatures, etc.)

To me it's very odd to require residency in the United States for the executive, but not to require residency of any time in the state represented for a senator or representative. These legislators are supposed to be carrying the interests of the state and its inhabitants, their constituents, with them when they go to the nation's capitol to transact legislation. If a representative or senator have come only recently into a state, how can it be thought that he or she will have a proper understanding or sympathy for the issues and concerns of its citizens? I would prefer that the Constitution require these legislators to be US citizens, yes, but that they also have lived some years (more for the senators than the representatives, perhaps, because they are thought to be the more senior and state-representative house) in the state where they run for office. That would limit the ability of a national party to place a candidate they wish to ensure being elected into a "safe" seat, but that's fine by me.

Comments?

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

These legislators are supposed to be carrying the interests of the state and its inhabitants, their constituents, with them when they go to the nation's capitol to transact legislation.

They're actually supposed to act in the best interests of the nation, or so I understand it. They're elected by the people of the state (and at one point, Senators were appointed directly by state legislatures), so it is presumed that the folks electing them will be familiar with them. This implies that they will have lived in the state for some time, as it would be difficult for them to get name recognition otherwise. Hillary Rodham Clinton has demonstrated that it isn't impossible, but it's still difficult.

If the good of the country calls for it, a Congresscritter is supposed to vote against the interests of his district. They generally don't, unless it's a total slam-dunk case -- it's hard to convince someone to re-elect you when you've pissed him off. Aaron Sorkin hit on some of this in a classic episode of "The West Wing":

"Today for the first time in history, the largest group of Americans living in poverty are children. 1 in 5 children live in the most abject, dangerous, hopeless, back-breaking, gut-wrenching poverty any of us could imagine. 1 in 5, and they're children. If fidelity to freedom of democracy is the code of our civic religion then surely the code of our humanity is faithful service to that unwritten commandment that says we shall give our children better than we ourselves received. Let me put it this way: I voted against the bill because I didn't want to make it hard for people to buy milk. I stopped some money from flowing into your pocket. If that angers you, if you resent me, I completely respect that. But if you expect anything different from the President of the United States, you should vote for someone else."

[winterbadger]

They're elected by the people of the state...so it is presumed that the folks electing them will be familiar with them.

But I think the intent of the Constitution is to have more than the single check of a candidate's popularity between them and an office. If we're going to leave it entirely up to the voters to decide whether someone is a suitable candidate, then why have age or citizenship limitations at all? If a majority of the population really believed that Kofi Annan would be the best choice for President of the United States, why not allow them to elect him? Similarly, why have an age restriction; if voters think a specific 25-year-old (say, Heath Ledger :-) is smart enough to be president, then why not let him be elected? (Of course, he's also Australian, which would kill two limits with one vote.)

I think one could actually develop a convincing argument along those lines, but I'm assuming that we're sticking with the principle that there be some Constitutionally-mandated limits on candidates for federal office. If so, something more than simple current residency seems appropriate to me for legislators. Someone like Hilary Clinton (or Alan Keyes) may be a brilliant speaker, a clever politician, and a smart person, but why should they be allowed to buy a house in my state today and be elected to represent it tomorrow?

If the good of the country calls for it, a Congresscritter is supposed to vote against the interests of his district.

I'll avoid "critters," since I think we all agree candidates should at least be human. :-) And, I think to add a nuance to your point, representatives should vote against the *immediate* interests of their district if they feel it is in the *broader* interests of their constituents to do so. But,a s you say, they need to be extremely convincing (the epitome of leadership, I would say, for legislators, is convincing your constituents that acting against their immediate interest is in their long-term interest). But there are very few Jed Bartletts around, and the Constitution was written with the assumption that people are generally going to vote for someone who works for *them*, not a nebulous general welfare, and that something akin to the political equivalent of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" ensures that the combined activity of representatives from all over the country, all pursuing the interests of their constituents, will combine to produce action conducive to the welfare of the nationa as a whole.

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

But I think the intent of the Constitution is to have more than the single check of a candidate's popularity between them and an office. If we're going to leave it entirely up to the voters to decide whether someone is a suitable candidate, then why have age or citizenship limitations at all?

It seemed good to the Founders, and nobody's managed to get a Constitutional amendment passed since then to change the situation. :)

Seriously, though, the Founders came up with rules that fit their circumstances, and we just haven't gotten around to changing them. In the 1780s, there was a stronger bond between political figures and the regions they came from. It certainly wasn't out of the question for people to travel, or even to change their residency, but it wasn't something done casually.

The rules are a little anachronistic now, but changing them would require getting a Constitutional amendment passed, or the convening of a Constitutional Convention, and it just seems easier to rely on voters not electing people that they aren't very familiar with. It would also be difficult to handle the concept of "neighboring-state" issues; for example, a Delaware politician may have a passable grasp on issues of importance to Marylanders, but not be familiar at all with the issues pertinent to voters in Colorado. How would one word a constitutional amendment to allow for such cases?

Sometimes it's best (not to mention easiest) to just trust the people.