<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: From The Archives -- Age Limits For All Politicians?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2026/07/17/from-the-archives-age-limits-for-all-politicians/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2026/07/17/from-the-archives-age-limits-for-all-politicians/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 01:28:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2026/07/17/from-the-archives-age-limits-for-all-politicians/#comment-222868</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=27849#comment-222868</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;since if ratified it would then become part of the Constitution itself -- which puts it beyond reach of even the Supreme Court to overturn.&lt;/i&gt;

Must be nice in whatever country you&#039;re living in.  Here in the US of A, we have judicial absolutism.  If SCOTUS decides that it&#039;s the original intent of the framers, we&#039;ll have the 13th and all subsequent amendments nullified, and the holding in Dred Scott v Sandford will once again be the law of the land.  We (the country that is, not Weigantia specifically) already had this discussion, in the context of the expectation that the Constitution was depressingly likely to be found unconstitutional on the subject of birthright citizenship. Compared to what they&#039;ve already done, holding that a new amendment wasn&#039;t duly proposed and ratified would be small potatoes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>since if ratified it would then become part of the Constitution itself -- which puts it beyond reach of even the Supreme Court to overturn.</i></p>
<p>Must be nice in whatever country you're living in.  Here in the US of A, we have judicial absolutism.  If SCOTUS decides that it's the original intent of the framers, we'll have the 13th and all subsequent amendments nullified, and the holding in Dred Scott v Sandford will once again be the law of the land.  We (the country that is, not Weigantia specifically) already had this discussion, in the context of the expectation that the Constitution was depressingly likely to be found unconstitutional on the subject of birthright citizenship. Compared to what they've already done, holding that a new amendment wasn't duly proposed and ratified would be small potatoes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
