Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The minimum age of 35 to be President is such an unnecessary rule (Original Post) Reter Jan 2015 OP
Why, some things in life comes from life experiences, it doesn't have anything to do witht he polls. Thinkingabout Jan 2015 #1
My fictional poll Reter Jan 2015 #5
Would that be because no 25 yo has the experience to sit in the big chair? cleanhippie Jan 2015 #7
The point is that the de facto age limit, LoveIsNow Jan 2015 #18
but other young artists WOULD...and THAT is the point...we need WISDOM in that office VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #27
Bush Reagan JonLP24 Jan 2015 #41
OMG....seriously you don't get it? It doesn't mean EVERYONE that gets old is wise... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #43
I didn't mean to imply I meant everyone over the age of 35 JonLP24 Jan 2015 #44
No there ISN'T significant evidence otherwise... VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #45
I agree JonLP24 Jan 2015 #46
Is it unnecessary? How many 25 year olds do you know that you'd MineralMan Jan 2015 #2
That's not the point Reter Jan 2015 #4
The fact that an adult is prohibited from running for office due to age is a limitation on free speech. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #10
No it isn't. A 34 and a 35 year old could say exactly the same things, it is nothing one said and TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #14
Running for President often results in the amplification of your voice, that is important as ideas. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #15
Good luck on your amendment effort, looks like you have a lot to do. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #21
And get sent to an LSD re-education camp? VScott Jan 2015 #11
Any of the Kardashians-Justin Beiber (Canadian?) packman Jan 2015 #13
With amending the Constitution being so easy, why not just go for it if you want? pinboy3niner Jan 2015 #3
Why not a cat? shenmue Jan 2015 #6
Socks was the closest we came Politicalboi Jan 2015 #8
Polling, schmolling AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #9
Some of them far and away over the 50, 60, 70, and 80 year olds punching holes in the ship now. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #16
I work with a bunch of 20 somethings AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #19
So what? I'm just saying ideally candidates should be judged on their own merits no age restrictions TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #20
So what? AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #22
Yes, if the 32 year old candidate isn't up to snuff then don't vote for them. TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #23
The ability to "Out perform Palin" AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #25
But Palin is over 35, I thought we were talking about age of a candidate being criticality important TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #47
Wow! AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #48
When the US constitution was written, the British PM was Pitt the Younger - started aged 24 in 1783 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2015 #12
That would be my guess rufus dog Jan 2015 #26
Experience is a function of time and comprehension seveneyes Jan 2015 #17
As a 26-year-old, I am very thankful for this. Ykcutnek Jan 2015 #24
You missed the point Reter Jan 2015 #29
Perhaps given average life expectancy at the time... Silent3 Jan 2015 #28
No, life expectancy for 35 year olds in 1789 former9thward Jan 2015 #30
I only meant the comment as a joke, I did know that if you made it past childhood... Silent3 Jan 2015 #31
That being said, my 4 year old is going to run. NightWatcher Jan 2015 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #33
She bows down to VERY different special interests groups NightWatcher Jan 2015 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #36
"Unnecessary," perhaps. H2O Man Jan 2015 #35
In between 2 round numbers JonLP24 Jan 2015 #42
It may be unecessary, but the arguements for it aren't without merit. And if it were removed, it DEMTough Jan 2015 #37
I agree strongly DavidDvorkin Jan 2015 #38
It is arbitrary JonLP24 Jan 2015 #39
Back when they wrote the constitution the lifespan was about 47 IIR. So they CK_John Jan 2015 #40
14 or fight! Nothing can beat the shape of things to come. Throd Jan 2015 #49

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
1. Why, some things in life comes from life experiences, it doesn't have anything to do witht he polls.
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:03 PM
Jan 2015

BTW what poll are you referring?

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
5. My fictional poll
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:13 PM
Jan 2015

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

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
7. Would that be because no 25 yo has the experience to sit in the big chair?
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:17 PM
Jan 2015

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


THAT'S why theres an age minimum.

LoveIsNow

(356 posts)
18. The point is that the de facto age limit,
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:52 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
27. but other young artists WOULD...and THAT is the point...we need WISDOM in that office
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:47 PM
Jan 2015

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

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
41. Bush Reagan
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:52 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
43. OMG....seriously you don't get it? It doesn't mean EVERYONE that gets old is wise...
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:45 AM
Jan 2015

for crying out loud....

Is every young person pretty in your world too?

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
44. I didn't mean to imply I meant everyone over the age of 35
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:53 AM
Jan 2015

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
45. No there ISN'T significant evidence otherwise...
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:08 AM
Jan 2015

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

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
46. I agree
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:13 AM
Jan 2015

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)

MineralMan

(146,243 posts)
2. Is it unnecessary? How many 25 year olds do you know that you'd
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:06 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
4. That's not the point
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:12 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
10. The fact that an adult is prohibited from running for office due to age is a limitation on free speech.
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:22 PM
Jan 2015

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?

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
14. No it isn't. A 34 and a 35 year old could say exactly the same things, it is nothing one said and
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:37 PM
Jan 2015

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.

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
21. Good luck on your amendment effort, looks like you have a lot to do.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:45 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
13. Any of the Kardashians-Justin Beiber (Canadian?)
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:34 PM
Jan 2015

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?

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
16. Some of them far and away over the 50, 60, 70, and 80 year olds punching holes in the ship now.
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:44 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
19. I work with a bunch of 20 somethings
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 04:09 PM
Jan 2015

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.

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
20. So what? I'm just saying ideally candidates should be judged on their own merits no age restrictions
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:35 PM
Jan 2015

required.

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

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
23. Yes, if the 32 year old candidate isn't up to snuff then don't vote for them.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:38 PM
Jan 2015

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?

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
25. The ability to "Out perform Palin"
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:56 PM
Jan 2015

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

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
47. But Palin is over 35, I thought we were talking about age of a candidate being criticality important
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:44 AM
Jan 2015

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?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,260 posts)
12. When the US constitution was written, the British PM was Pitt the Younger - started aged 24 in 1783
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:29 PM
Jan 2015
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).
 

Ykcutnek

(1,305 posts)
24. As a 26-year-old, I am very thankful for this.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:48 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
29. You missed the point
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:41 PM
Jan 2015

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

Silent3

(15,127 posts)
28. Perhaps given average life expectancy at the time...
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:49 PM
Jan 2015

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

former9thward

(31,922 posts)
30. No, life expectancy for 35 year olds in 1789
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:56 PM
Jan 2015

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

Silent3

(15,127 posts)
31. I only meant the comment as a joke, I did know that if you made it past childhood...
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:27 PM
Jan 2015

...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.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
32. That being said, my 4 year old is going to run.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:31 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Response to NightWatcher (Reply #32)

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
34. She bows down to VERY different special interests groups
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:47 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Response to NightWatcher (Reply #34)

H2O Man

(73,505 posts)
35. "Unnecessary," perhaps.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:51 PM
Jan 2015

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

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
42. In between 2 round numbers
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:30 AM
Jan 2015

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.

DEMTough

(90 posts)
37. It may be unecessary, but the arguements for it aren't without merit. And if it were removed, it
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 10:17 PM
Jan 2015

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.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
40. Back when they wrote the constitution the lifespan was about 47 IIR. So they
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:49 PM
Jan 2015

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The minimum age of 35 to ...