1,000 Wordsworth*

Rand Paul is a sniveling sack of shit. His father's no prize, but gee-ziz!

You can imagine what sort of woman would marry ol' Ron; judging from Rand she didn't bring any more than expected to the Paul genetic pool, did she?

Also Too, Equal Time

Political dynasties should have stopped w/ the Adamses. It's in the Constitution: No titles of nobility. In American: No fucking nepotism!!

Favorite Sons: For example, why was the Constitution's age rule necessary? In the framers' world, who could ever have enjoyed enough name recognition to be elected president at the age of, say, 32?

As they drafted and debated the Constitution, the founders knew that the sitting English prime minister was William Pitt, the younger, whose father (William Pitt, the elder) had headed the ministry before the American Revolution. Young Pitt had entered Parliament at age 21 and had become prime minister at age 24. America's Constitution aimed to prevent something similar from happening here. By 35, a favorite son of a famous father would have his own record on which he could be judged. Conversely, meritorious low-born men would have time to rise through the ranks. George Washington was the first electoral college's unanimous choice not only because of his model military service but also because he embodied an anti-dynastic ideal. Washington became father of his country precisely because he was not father to any child who might seek to succeed him.

Of the first five men entrusted with the presidency, only one had any (acknowledged) sons. That was John Adams, and his namesake, John Quincy Adams, himself became America's sixth president—but only after proving his own mettle and winning the top slot long after his 35 th birthday and a quarter-century after his father's tenure. Q's presidential résumé included an eight-year stint as America's top diplomat under a president (Monroe) wholly unconnected to the elder Adams. With Q and A, we can see the sensible limits of the framers' anti-dynastic ideology and the nice balance they struck. A permanent disqualification of favorite sons would have gone too far, forever preventing Americans from tapping someone whom they reasonably viewed as the nation's ablest leader, such as a mature Q. Beyond the rule of 35, the Constitution trusted the political process to resist dynastic overreach, and early presidential discourse sharply focused the public's attention on dynastic issues. So have various father-son moments over the centuries.

Typed 2008-ish; comparing J.Q. Adams to G.W. Bush or that fucking Paul doofus w/ the curly locks toupée, do you trust an at best amorphous "political process" now?

Danziger.

---

*Had not intended to drag in many a word from Slate 2008 when we re-used that title (again).