“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.” (Article 1, Section 3, The United States Constitution)

There, folks, is the Constitution’s sparsely-worded set of requirements for anyone wishing to serve as a United States Senator.

It seems like a good idea to review those words in light of the current sturm-und-drang over Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg’s desire to be appointed by the governor of New York to Hillary Clinton’s unexpired Senate seat should Clinton be confirmed as Secretary of State. At fifty-one, a lifelong resident of the country, a citizen of the US, and a long-time resident of New York, Kennedy-Schlossberg is constitutionally qualified for the post.

There are though, some pundits and bloggers who disdain the prospective senator’s qualifications. She hasn’t run for or held elective office before, they say. But in fairness, neither had her prospective predecessor.

Some of these same folks claim that she has a negligible record of public service. But that’s inaccurate. She’s used her Kennedy name and connections to raise tens of millions of dollars for the public school system in New York City.

She has also written books on the Constitution. And familiarity with the Constitution is something that could prove useful in Washington, D.C., a place that seems often in the past several decades to have forgotten all about the supreme law of the land.

I’ve written about the royalism that has increasingly and alarmingly infected US politics. It seems to me inherently bad for a person to be able to gain consideration for any public office, whether the office is ward committee person or President, simply because their last name gives them connections, cash, and cache. As I’ve previously pointed out, if Ms. Kennedy’s last name were Smith or Jones, Governor Paterson would likely have not taken her first exploratory telephone call regarding the New York senate seat.

But that said, there’s no reason to feel that previous political experience is a plus for the position of United States Senator.

In fact, there’s an argument to be made in the opposite direction.

While it’s true that Washington experience educates a legislator in the ins-and-outs of the federal government, making her or him less credulous when dealing with dodgy bureaucrats and dicey political infighters, it seems that many who have such experience come to love their lives on the Potomac so much that they simply become part of the problem.

For example. Hillary Clinton had no elective experience when she was elected to the Senate from New York in 2000. But, a lifetime of political dealing seems to have inured her from some of the moral and mortal dangers pork barrel spending. Clinton at times has seemed to be vying to be named successor to former Senator Alfonse D’Amato’s designation as “Senator Pothole.” Today’s morning papers told the sorry tale of how Clinton, fellow New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, and Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter successfully earmarked a product which actually endangers the safety and lives of US soldiers, all to please local manufacturers who, in turn, have donated to their campaign coffers.

It’s possible then, that a little political inexperience could be a good thing. Not naivete, but inexperience. Of course, it’s a point open for debate as to whether a pol who doesn’t want to be a Senator Pothole (or Fill-in-the-Office Pothole) can last very long. Everybody opposes pork barrel earmarks except for their own states, districts, or favorite interest.

But going back to the Constitution, despite being political animals themselves, the Framers seem not to have envisioned career politicians racking up seniority in the Congress. The ideal for them was Cincinnatus, the citizen-soldier who did his duty and then, like George Washington, returned home happily. They envisioned people of substance, intellectual as well as material, who, at the age of thirty already would have, in eighteenth century terms, lived as long or longer than the average person, bringing wisdom and experience to service in the Senate for six or twelve years. They no doubt would be horrified by the long-serving champion of pork barreling, Robert Byrd.

So, should Caroline Kennedy be appointed to the Senate? Well, I don’t express opinions on those sorts of subjects in my blogging. And while I disdain America’s modern royalism, I also abhor the really awful things I’ve seen some bloggers write about Kennedy’s desire to become a Senator. One of them said that Kennedy was torn between a senate bid and getting her nails done.

That’s unfair.

Constitutionally, Kennedy is qualified to be a Senator. She may even bring the right mixture of character, intelligence, knowledge, experience, attainments, work ethic, and wisdom needed for what was long ago described as the world’s greatest deliberative body.

But if Governor Paterson is considering appointing her solely because she is John F. Kennedy’s daughter, he might want to think again. By all accounts, even from those who loved the slain president, JFK was at best, an indifferent United States Senator. If genes are commending Kennedy for the office, one must also concede that those same genes condemn her candidacy.

[You can read lots of scintillating stuff on my personal blog.]