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]

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.