HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The minimum age of 35 to ...

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:57 PM

 

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

I mean, seriously. Are there that many 25 year olds polling ahead of Clinton right now? What were they thinking?

49 replies, 3341 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply The minimum age of 35 to be President is such an unnecessary rule (Original post)
Reter Jan 2015 OP
Thinkingabout Jan 2015 #1
Reter Jan 2015 #5
cleanhippie Jan 2015 #7
LoveIsNow Jan 2015 #18
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #27
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #41
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #43
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #44
VanillaRhapsody Jan 2015 #45
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #46
MineralMan Jan 2015 #2
Reter Jan 2015 #4
Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #10
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #14
Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #15
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #21
VScott Jan 2015 #11
packman Jan 2015 #13
pinboy3niner Jan 2015 #3
shenmue Jan 2015 #6
Politicalboi Jan 2015 #8
AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #9
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #16
AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #19
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #20
AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #22
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #23
AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #25
TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #47
AgingAmerican Jan 2015 #48
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2015 #12
rufus dog Jan 2015 #26
seveneyes Jan 2015 #17
Ykcutnek Jan 2015 #24
Reter Jan 2015 #29
Silent3 Jan 2015 #28
former9thward Jan 2015 #30
Silent3 Jan 2015 #31
NightWatcher Jan 2015 #32
1000words Jan 2015 #33
NightWatcher Jan 2015 #34
1000words Jan 2015 #36
H2O Man Jan 2015 #35
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #42
DEMTough Jan 2015 #37
DavidDvorkin Jan 2015 #38
JonLP24 Jan 2015 #39
CK_John Jan 2015 #40
Throd Jan 2015 #49

Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:03 PM

1. Why, some things in life comes from life experiences, it doesn't have anything to do witht he polls.

BTW what poll are you referring?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:13 PM

5. My fictional poll

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:17 PM

7. Would that be because no 25 yo has the experience to sit in the big chair?

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


THAT'S why theres an age minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:52 PM

18. The point is that the de facto age limit,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoveIsNow (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:47 PM

27. but other young artists WOULD...and THAT is the point...we need WISDOM in that office

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:52 PM

41. Bush Reagan

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:45 AM

43. OMG....seriously you don't get it? It doesn't mean EVERYONE that gets old is wise...

 

for crying out loud....

Is every young person pretty in your world too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:53 AM

44. I didn't mean to imply I meant everyone over the age of 35

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:08 AM

45. No there ISN'T significant evidence otherwise...

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:13 AM

46. I agree

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:06 PM

2. Is it unnecessary? How many 25 year olds do you know that you'd

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:12 PM

4. That's not the point

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:22 PM

10. The fact that an adult is prohibited from running for office due to age is a limitation on free speech.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:37 PM

14. No it isn't. A 34 and a 35 year old could say exactly the same things, it is nothing one said and

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:42 PM

15. Running for President often results in the amplification of your voice, that is important as ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:45 PM

21. Good luck on your amendment effort, looks like you have a lot to do.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:24 PM

11. And get sent to an LSD re-education camp?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:34 PM

13. Any of the Kardashians-Justin Beiber (Canadian?)

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:09 PM

3. With amending the Constitution being so easy, why not just go for it if you want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:14 PM

6. Why not a cat?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shenmue (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:18 PM

8. Socks was the closest we came

 

Maybe someday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:19 PM

9. Polling, schmolling

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:44 PM

16. Some of them far and away over the 50, 60, 70, and 80 year olds punching holes in the ship now.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 04:09 PM

19. I work with a bunch of 20 somethings

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:35 PM

20. So what? I'm just saying ideally candidates should be judged on their own merits no age restrictions

required.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 02:48 PM

22. So what?

 

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:38 PM

23. Yes, if the 32 year old candidate isn't up to snuff then don't vote for them.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:56 PM

25. The ability to "Out perform Palin"

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 11:44 AM

47. But Palin is over 35, I thought we were talking about age of a candidate being criticality important

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 12:31 PM

48. Wow!

 

That is just plain weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:29 PM

12. When the US constitution was written, the British PM was Pitt the Younger - started aged 24 in 1783

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:33 PM

26. That would be my guess

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:45 PM

17. Experience is a function of time and comprehension

 

Unlikely to change anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:48 PM

24. As a 26-year-old, I am very thankful for this.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:41 PM

29. You missed the point

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:49 PM

28. Perhaps given average life expectancy at the time...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:56 PM

30. No, life expectancy for 35 year olds in 1789

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:27 PM

31. I only meant the comment as a joke, I did know that if you made it past childhood...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:31 PM

32. That being said, my 4 year old is going to run.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #32)


Response to 1000words (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:47 PM

34. She bows down to VERY different special interests groups

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #34)


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 07:51 PM

35. "Unnecessary," perhaps.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:30 AM

42. In between 2 round numbers

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 10:17 PM

37. It may be unecessary, but the arguements for it aren't without merit. And if it were removed, it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:12 PM

38. I agree strongly

There should be no age limit of any kind.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:37 PM

39. It is arbitrary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:49 PM

40. Back when they wrote the constitution the lifespan was about 47 IIR. So they

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 12:50 PM

49. 14 or fight! Nothing can beat the shape of things to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread