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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 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, 02:37 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The minimum age of 35 to ...»Reply #14