Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong in regards to this), discrimination against naturalized U.S. citizens (such as preventing them from, say, becoming the head of the CIA) which is passed right now is going to get struck down by the courts based on the 14th Amendment (specifically based on its Equal Protection Clause). Thus, courts should declare that the 14th Amendment implicitly repealed the natural-born citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency due to its discriminatory nature based on national origin.
As for the claim that the U.S. Constitution cannot be repealed by implication, I appear to see nothing in the U.S. Constitution itself which states this. Indeed, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment limits Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, even though the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly require that result. Also, I would like to point out that I am not talking about actually having courts amend the U.S. Constitution; rather, I am talking about having courts reinterpret an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--something that I think that courts previously did both in Roe (1973) and in Obergefell (2015).
Indeed, I assume that the liberals' argument in regards to things such as abortion (and formerly, gay marriage as well) is that these things need to be legal nationwide through the courts (in spite of the fact that there appears to have been no pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage original intent in the 14th Amendment) because it is too hard to pass a U.S. Constitutional Amendment in regards to these things. Plus, liberals might say that they are simply ensuring that people's rights are honored and that greater fairness and justice is achieved. However, by that logic, greater fairness and justice would also be achieved by having courts declare that the natural-born citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency is implicitly repealed by the 14th Amendment.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
My objection to your logic is that the Constitution explicitly states the "natural-born" requirement and that was not repealed. The other examples you gave are nowhere addressed in the Constitution. Thus it was easy (although entirely wrong in my opinion--and I'm in good company in this) for them to apply the amendment to make up these so-called constitutional rights.
By your logic, age-discrimination rules adopted through the courts and the 14th Amendment should then have implicitly repealed the age 35 requirement ( I realize that age discrimination relates to older ages, but given how the courts make up the rules as they go, my logic is not a stretch). What requirement anywhere would be valid with this logic?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
