The minimum age of 35 to be President is such an unnecessary rule

BTW what poll are you referring?

I'm saying that Clinton is far in the lead. No 25 year old has a chance of beating her.

If Justin Beber said he was gonna run for pres, his polling would be through the roof.


THAT'S why theres an age minimum.

the minimum age candidate for which someone will actually vote, is way higher than 35. Kennedy was 43, and that was considered almost scandalously young.The average age at inauguration is 54.67 years. There is no realistic chance of a 35, year old president, therefore the rule is redundant.

Secondly, Justin Bieber would not poll rough the roof. Not even CLOSE. He wouldn't even lead among the 18-24 demographic. He is not a respected figure, by any stretch.

a kind of wisdom that only comes with age...when you get there you will understand that.

i'd say Bush Sr but he was a smart one, just unsympathetic & selfish & bought & paid for.

I'd probably be able to trust the young artists more depending on who but you're talking about candidates who would have to survive a two party system primary elections but I'm seeing very little evidence of wisdom occupying that office or the sociopathic type of wisdom. I'm 28, but my favorite elected official is Bernie Sanders. Explain that one to me.

for crying out loud....

Is every young person pretty in your world too?

I just mean significant evidence that counters it, including the older the demographic--the more the more reliable voting blocs Republicans can count on for votes. However, I favor Bernie Sanders & his policies over most national political figures so I'm not sure why people view Canadian Justin Beiber would be a threat who I doubt has much fans outside of preteen females.

The poster downthread with the FDR avatar more accurately describes my view.

two old guy that sucked...do not negate the fact that LIVING makes one wiser.....once you have...you will understand that...

Wisdom is an acquired characteristic not a genetic one

though I'd probably score lower on tests I took when I was 16-19 but I'm more wise as well as lost knowledge (but I have an idea of where to look to find it)

trust to be President? I don't know any, and I know lots of people that age. The reality is that it's highly unlikely that anyone under the age of about 45 will have accumulated enough life experience and reputation to even be considered seriously as a potential President.

However, if you have some names to put out there, I'm sure you'll get some comments.

None of those 25 year olds have any chance of being elected. Having a minimum age of 35 is like having a law that says only humans can drive. Unnecessary since dogs and fish aren't going to try to drive anyway.

Folks need to consider that 34 year old may well not win, but even so, wouldn't his/her ideas be valuable in the marketplace of ideas?

Would you rather have Reagen again in his final two years in power barely able to tie his shoes?

the other didn't that causes ineligibility.

Further, the 34 year old is not prohibited from making whatever statements they please nor is anyone prohibited from speaking in favor of the younger.

The person's ideas are not excluded from the "marketplace" it is the specific person for not meeting criteria not the content of those ideas.

Your vote is not an expression, the ballot is secret. The vote is an entirely separate right than speech, even political speech.

In any event, it is specifically codified in the supreme law of the land there is no possible fix other than a constitutional amendment, it is logically impossible for it to be ruled unconstitutional on ANY grounds. The law doesn't work in a way that would allow you to evade the criteria set.

I'm not even saying I agree with the restriction I just don't see it as worth the required effort and find your reasoning to be at least stretched some to arrive at your particular argument.

If I could order a re - write, I'd omit age restrictions and let voters decide the merits of a candidate but I can't so it is what it is and way down the concern list. Realistically speaking almost no one is going to have the connections, profile, experience, or even inclination to run for President at 21 anyway.

No thanks!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_in_the_Streets

or any of the young under 35 idols that may capture the young voters - kinda scary ain't it. Agree with you though, highly improbable. But then , again, look at some of the people - pig castrator, Louie, Sarah ,Cruz, Bush , etc. who are or were in public office. Makes you wonder why Section I, Article II has that 35 yr. rule with 14 year residency?

The Constitution says American citizen. It does not say hoomin.

Maybe someday.

Would you really want some 25 year old running the country?

Age increases the opportunity to gain wisdom but should never be considered an indicator much less indicative of wisdom.

I'm not going to waste a bit of energy on a constitutional amendment on this, it pretty much doesn't practically matter but if I was god Emperor of a re - right, I'd drop the age restrictions on offices altogether and allow the people to decide if particular candidates have acquired the prerequisite knowledge, wisdom, and experience to serve them in the position sought.

They are obsessed with video games, anime and cartoons, and they whine if they have to do any physical labor. Our older workers work harder, don't whine about doing their jobs and have waaaay more experience knowing what works and what doesn't work.

required.

The voters can decide if the individual stacks up or not just as they do if someone is too old to be effective.

lol

If by some chance the 27 year old is the best candidate then vote for them, I'm not talking rocket science. It is the same thought process used now just taking a few possible additional candidates for consideration but you don't think much of young people so it is transformed into something alien and complex in your mind when it is exactly the same process as we know now.

You seriously believe their are ZERO (even if rare) 25 year olds with the intellect, temperment, and knowledge to out perform the likes of Mitt Romney or a Sarah Palin?

You think a John McCain would have run circles around a Julien Castro even six years ago?

I've known extremely competent young people and foolish and ignorant older folks and vice versa. The generalities don't matter it is the specific individuals who should be evaluated.

In fewer words...so?

Is not one of my presidential criteria. I set the bar a tad higher than that.

Now you're talking evaluating the candidate as an individual? For why?

That evaluation works for a 33 year old just as well as a 43 year old as it does for a 53 year old as it does for a 63 year old.

The age doesn't matter on an individual level no matter how it trends broadly. If you rely on discernment now what negative effects do you think would throw you if a younger candidate than you are accustomed to shows up? What is going to distort your calculus?

That is just plain weird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger

That he stayed PM for 18 years (and later came back for 1 more year) indicates he was pretty canny in the post. But they had good reason to think that very young men (all men then, of course) might rise to power that quickly. And note he is "William Pitt the Younger" - his father, also William Pitt, had also been PM (though 'Prime Minister' wasn't an official title back then, and when the Commons and Lords both had large power, who 'the' leader of a government was could sometime be a matter of debate - see Pitt the Elder's Wikipedia entry for more). There's a fair argument that Pitt the Younger was appointed mainly because his father was well thought of, and Britain needed a 'reset' after losing the US as a colony. Part of the reason for 'over 35' could have been to discourage the chances of dynastic succession in presidents, with the son still influenced by the father (not the case for the Pitts, though - the elder had already died by 1783).

They were concerned that the Presidency would be passed down from father to son.

Unlikely to change anytime soon.

I'm going to be as cynical as many of the posters here when the people running the country are the same age or younger than me.

I'm not looking forward to it. At all.

No one under 40 would ever be elected President anyway, so the law is wasted words.

...that age limit wasn't about wisdom and maturity, but a way to create a type of term limit.

was not that much different than in 2014. The low life expectancy averages that are reported take into account the massive amount of people who died in infancy or by disease until adulthood. Once you got to adulthood you could expect to live a normal lifespan into the 60s at least. Look at the ages the founders died at.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

...back then you had a good chance of a decent lifespan -- still not quite so long as today, but not enough for a very effective term limit.

Her priorities will be no more naps, more candy, and the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse will be showing 24 hours a day in lieu of any news channels.

The first thing she'd do is change the Capitol of the US from DC to Orlando, Florida. She'd replace the Oval Office with the suite in Cinderella's castle.

We would immediately deport Josh, this kid from school that she doesn't like.

Wars would end and free up money for special projects like painting every building in the US either Pink or Purple.

But not arbitrary. There is a reason that 35 was identified as the youngest age.

Why it is more special more than 34 or why 36 isn't valued more but it is hard to locate to the reasons given but I think 35 was identified because it was halfway between 2 round numbers but there are plenty of people over the line the wisdom & life experience (which varies radically depending on backgrounds & growing up, Bush jr certainly had different life experiences than someone born under concentrated poverty.

wouldn't matter.

Most interested young people wouldn't run, school, debt, job finding/holding, it would be tough to run and then hold office, sacrificing many of their best years. Those uninterested in politics, a fair majority of young people, obviously aren't going to run.

If one were to run, most of the electorate would likely be turned off by a candidate who would take advantage of the rule change. Along with many of the concerns raised here in the thread.

If they had merit to their ideas both according to their party, and worldview at large, they could be competitive with proper youth vote outreach, combined with a constant media focused on them out of curiosity.

As far as the Presidency goes, there's so many de-facto rules of society in place, I don't think anyone in their twenties, after abolishing the age requirement, could possibly be elected, or hold enough experience to get appointed to a line of succession post. (i.e. Cabinet Secretary, no one will elect a young House Speaker, due to the seniority rules in the House, and the Senate for that matter, with the President Pro-Tem). There's no evident law giving an age requirement for Cabinet Secretary, but Presidents appoint people with proper authority in a field relating to the office, and you really can't get that for many years.

There should be no age limit of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger

were looking for seasoned white male property owners who wouldn't be around too long.