# President Arnold? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021 "2004-11-16T06:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/41 "2004-11-18T03:26:56Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Better yet, make it 10 years. Nah, 35 is just fine. > [@](#): > > It’s not reasonable to punish them for their youth, either. Young candidates bring fresh ideas, and they can spark the interest of young voters. A 35 year old candidate doesn’t necessarily have any more _relevant_ experience than an 18 year old candidate, and in any case, the voters can decide for themselves whether someone is experienced enough. I’m guessing the 35 years requirement was drafted by people who were concerned about a “regency” President, whose youth made them personally ineffective and under the control of older, unaccountable advisors, as various underage Kings had been, with George III (ascended at 22) particularly in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/42 "2004-11-18T04:08:02Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’m guessing the 35 years requirement was drafted by people who were concerned about a “regency” President, whose youth made them personally ineffective and under the control of older, unaccountable advisors, as various underage Kings had been, with George III (ascended at 22) particularly in mind. Let’s not forget that those same people also condoned slavery and only gave males the right to vote. Prejudice was behind those decisions, and it’s just as likely that prejudice was behind this one. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/43 "2004-11-18T04:45:51Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Let’s not forget that those same people also condoned slavery and only gave males the right to vote. Prejudice was behind those decisions, and it’s just as likely that prejudice was behind this one. Yeah, you’re right. The whole Constitution is a cruel sham. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/44 "2004-11-18T05:21:22Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Yeah, you’re right. The whole Constitution is a cruel sham. Why, that’s my point exactly! I don’t know why I didn’t just write that in the first place, since it’s so obviously what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone, and please, don’t hesitate to do it again in the future if you find any other hidden messages in my posts. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/45 "2004-11-18T05:48:23Z")
Leave aside the amendment for a minute. The last time I checked, Ahnold was pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, against gay marriage but more in favor of gay rights than your average Republican, and has been associated with both sexual harrassment and gay porn. If the Republicans want to run him for President, should we really be standing in their way? Do we need to? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/46 "2004-11-18T05:55:51Z")
Oh, I know what you _meant_, but if you feel okay challenging one part of the Constitution because of a totally unrelated part which has since been judged evil, then _all_ of the Constitution becomes suspect. ---
**Author:** ![grayhairedmomma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/47e85d/32.png) [@grayhairedmomma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grayhairedmomma)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/47 "2004-11-18T08:08:13Z")
This idea of amending the constitution to allow immigrants to become president brings out pretty bitter emotions in me. I’d like to see the country progress to having a female or a black president before we open it up to all the rich white men in the world. And I think we all know that any other minority wouldn’t be elected to the office in our lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/48 "2004-11-18T08:11:01Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Oh, I know what you _meant_, but if you feel okay challenging one part of the Constitution because of a totally unrelated part which has since been judged evil, then _all_ of the Constitution becomes suspect. I feel okay challenging the age restrictions simply because they’re age restrictions, regardless of what other restrictions have since been judged evil. I’m just trying to compare the justificaiton for this one with the justification for the others. Surely the framers could’ve come up with some logical-sounding reason why they didn’t want women to vote, just as you can now come up with some logical-sounding reason why they might not have wanted 34 year olds to be President. But we now understand that the logic behind denying women the vote was based on sexism and thus invalid, and IMO the logic behind restricting the President’s age is similarly based on ageism and thus also invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/49 "2004-11-18T09:16:11Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I feel okay challenging the age restrictions simply because they’re age restrictions, regardless of what other restrictions have since been judged evil. > > I’m just trying to compare the justificaiton for this one with the justification for the others. Surely the framers could’ve come up with some logical-sounding reason why they didn’t want women to vote, just as you can now come up with some logical-sounding reason why they might not have wanted 34 year olds to be President. But we now understand that the logic behind denying women the vote was based on sexism and thus invalid, and IMO the logic behind restricting the President’s age is similarly based on ageism and thus also invalid. I’d believe anyone under the age of 35 can run for president when more than 50% come out to vote in an election. Right now we’re running at 17% as of last election. Seems like they don’t want a voice in politics. Also, an 18 year old would have even less of an idea of what was going on in politics than a 35 year old newcomer. If the you want into politics, let them run for state/national congress not the white house. As for this amendment being for the greater good, I don’t buy it. The only reason this is being pushed is for Arnold. It’s a constitutional change for one man to benefit one party. If they want it so bad, use the 35 year citizenship suggested by **Bryan Ekers**. If this is for the good of all immigrants, prove it by making the Governator wait. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/50 "2004-11-18T09:29:43Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > As for this amendment being for the greater good, I don’t buy it. The only reason this is being pushed is for Arnold. It’s a constitutional change for one man to benefit one party. If they want it so bad, use the 35 year citizenship suggested by **Bryan Ekers**. If this is for the good of all immigrants, prove it by making the Governator wait. During the Reconstruction Era, The Republicans undoubtedly enjoyed a spectacular political boost by extending the franchise to Blacks. After all, it was the Republicans that were largely responsible for freeing them and giving them the vote. That move benefited one particular party greatly. Should the 15th amendment have had a similar provision waiting 20 years after it was ratified for blacks to vote so the political atmosphere cooled down? I think not. If it’s the right thing to do, its the right thing to do right now. ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/51 "2004-11-18T11:52:49Z")
> [@mornea](#): > > This idea of amending the constitution to allow immigrants to become president brings out pretty bitter emotions in me. > > I’d like to see the country progress to having a female or a black president before we open it up to all the rich white men in the world. And I think we all know that any other minority wouldn’t be elected to the office in our lifetime. While I can sympathize with your frustration at the small likelihood that a female or black POTUS will be elected any time soon, I don’t think that the “Natural-Born Citizen” restriction is helping your cause to any extent. Removing this restriction **increases** the chance that a minority will become POTUS, if only because the immigrant population to the US skews towards minorities. Arnold Schwarzenegger may be the current _cause celebre_, but that doesn’t mean that the Amendment would favor rich white males – in fact it would tend to do the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/52 "2004-11-18T12:05:03Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > and IMO the logic behind restricting the President’s age is similarly based on ageism and thus also invalid. Well, I’ll have to disagree with that piece of circular reasoning. Restrictions based on “ageism” exist on the not-completely-arbitrary assumption that wisdom and age are highly correlated, and given the precedent of young and malleable kings being inaugerated, the age restriction doesn’t seem invalid or unreasonable to me. It took some digging, but I finally managed to find something on point, a “logical-sounding reason” if you will; a passage from [Thomas Paine’s _The Rights of Man, Part 2_, 1792](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=549): > [@](#): > > In the American Federal Government, more power is delegated to the President of the United States than to any other individual member of Congress. He cannot, therefore, be elected to this office under the age of thirty-five years. By this time the judgment of man becomes more matured, and he has lived long enough to be acquainted with men and things, and the country with him.- But on the monarchial plan (exclusive of the numerous chances there are against every man born into the world, of drawing a prize in the lottery of human faculties), the next in succession, whatever he may be, is put at the head of a nation, and of a government, at the age of eighteen years. Does this appear like an action of wisdom? Is it consistent with the proper dignity and the manly character of a nation? Where is the propriety of calling such a lad the father of the people?- In all other cases, a person is a minor until the age of twenty-one years. Before this period, he is not trusted with the management of an acre of land, or with the heritable property of a flock of sheep, or an herd of swine; but, wonderful to tell! he may, at the age of eighteen years, be trusted with a nation. > > … > > If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country. > > In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent. I doubt he’d approve of President Schwartzenegger, either. Interestingly, of the delegates to the Constituional Convention of 1787, at least twelve were under the age of thirty-five, including Alexander Hamilton. I can’t find any indication of dissent on the president’s required age. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/53 "2004-11-18T15:08:21Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The 22nd amendment was pretty much all about Republicans being pissed at FDR. I recall a political commentator (during the Bush the Elder administration) pointing out that all it had done (up to that time) was bite the Republicans in the butt. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/54 "2004-11-18T18:26:06Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > I recall a political commentator (during the Bush the Elder administration) pointing out that all it had done (up to that time) was bite the Republicans in the butt. Indeed, since there’s a better than even chance that Reagan would have won a third term, and but for the Alzheimer’s might even have won more. Which is why this overt focus on Arnie is silly. Republicans favoring the amendment just because they think the’ve got a good candidate in the wings will be weeping ten or twenty years hence when the Dems find their own foreign-born candidate. And the Dems fighting the amendment purely to keep Arnie out are ignoring the long-term advantages of expanding their pool of potential candidates. Either the amendment is a good idea or it isn’t. Trying to make that determination based on a like or dislike of Arnold Schwarzenegger is silly. Arnold is undoubtedly a catalyst for making this change a possibility, but the overt focus on him as a candidate really misses the point. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/55 "2004-11-18T21:59:50Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’d believe anyone under the age of 35 can run for president when more than 50% come out to vote in an election. Right now we’re running at 17% as of last election. Seems like they don’t want a voice in politics. All right, let’s run with that. Surely if this logic applies to voters under 35, it applies to other age and ethnic groups, right? [Here](http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-552.pdf) are some statistics up through 2002. In Table B, we can see that only 19.3% of citizens age 18-24, and 31.8% of citizens age 25-34, reported voting. So, it seems they shouldn’t be President. But wait. Only 44.8% of citizens age 35-44 reported voting. I guess the minimum age to be President should be at least 45. Don’t stop there! There’s so much more we can learn from this table. The marital statistics tell us that the President must also be either married with his spouse present, or widowed. The income statistics tell us he must make at least $50,000 a year. Looking at the continuation, we can see that the President must also own his own home where he’s lived for 5 years or longer. He must also be a white person from the midwest or a white, non-Hispanic person from the west. Hey, this is working pretty well, right? I wonder if we can learn anything about the gender of our ideal President - silly me, I’ve been saying “he” all this time without even checking the voter statistics to see if men are qualified to run the country. Unfortunately, only 45.6% of men and 46.6% of women voted, so it looks like the President will have to be a hermaphrodite. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, I’ll have to disagree with that piece of circular reasoning. Restrictions based on “ageism” exist on the not-completely-arbitrary assumption that wisdom and age are highly correlated, and given the precedent of young and malleable kings being inaugerated, the age restriction doesn’t seem invalid or unreasonable to me. > > […] > > “In the American Federal Government, more power is delegated to the President of the United States than to any other individual member of Congress. He cannot, therefore, be elected to this office under the age of thirty-five years. By this time the judgment of man becomes more matured, and he has lived long enough to be acquainted with men and things, and the country with him.” See, this is what I’m talking about. You could replace thirty-five in that paragraph with 25, 45, or 65, and it would be just as believable. It’s an arbitrary number, and the only reason we’re to believe it’s The Appropriate Age For A President is that this guy and a 200 year old piece of paper say so. Why is the country any more likely to be familiar with the average 35 year old than the average 30, 25, or 18 year old? Where is the evidence that 35 year olds’ judgment is any more “mature” on average than 30, 25, or 18 year olds’, and what does “mature” even mean in this context? If we’re supposed to believe 35 year olds are better suited simply because “wisdom and age are highly correlated”, then why not just make the oldest person in the country President? > [@](#): > > Interestingly, of the delegates to the Constituional Convention of 1787, at least twelve were under the age of thirty-five, including Alexander Hamilton. I can’t find any indication of dissent on the president’s required age. I’m sure you could also find 12 black people from the time of slavery who believed the propaganda telling them they were inferior, just as you can find some teenagers today who don’t believe they should have rights. Doesn’t mean they’re right, though. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/56 "2004-11-18T22:13:42Z")
How about this for another reason Mr2001? They have no experience running much of anything. Student body president or Asst. Manager of Dennys does not qualify as sufficient experience to run an entire country. How about you tell me why having an 18 year old president is such a good idea? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/57 "2004-11-18T22:26:39Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > How about this for another reason Mr2001? > > They have no experience running much of anything. Student body president or Asst. Manager of Dennys does not qualify as sufficient experience to run an entire country. So you’d support an amendment saying that a Presidential candidate must be someone who has “run something” - been president or CEO of a business, presumably? That would’ve eliminated John Kerry, Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, IIRC. It wouldn’t have disqualified George W. Bush, but considering his record of running businesses, I’m not sure that’s a good thing… 😉 > [@](#): > > How about you tell me why having an 18 year old president is such a good idea? They’re citizens subject to our laws, and since this is a democracy, that means they deserve to participate in government. It’s inherently a good idea to eliminate arbitrary restrictions on who may participate in government, whether that means voting or holding public office. I’ve also already mentioned that younger candidates bring new perspectives and could raise interest (and thus turnout) among younger voters. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/58 "2004-11-18T23:33:13Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > They’re citizens subject to our laws, and since this is a democracy, that means they deserve to participate in government. It’s inherently a good idea to eliminate arbitrary restrictions on who may participate in government, whether that means voting or holding public office. I’ve also already mentioned that younger candidates bring new perspectives and could raise interest (and thus turnout) among younger voters. Society, in general, puts a greater degree of trust in its more mature members. You can find plenty of examples of this by comparing the age of our elected leaders with the minimum age required for them to take office. The youngest possible age to be a U.S Representative is 25. The median age of the country is about 33. Yet the median age for members of Congress is [53](http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/legis/timchcon.htm). Theoretically, we could have a 35 year old President. Yet in the entire history of the Republic, the youngest President we have ever elected was 43 (John F. Kennedy). A full 8 years over the minimum. Over 200 years, the average age of the President upon first assuming office has been [55](http://explorers.whyte.com/pvp.htm). Even if we completely eliminated the age limit for the Presidency, I very much doubt we’d see a President under 40 get elected. We have no age limits on Supreme Court Justices, yet we never see any 18 year olds get appointed to the office, even though I’m sure there are quite a few legal “Dougie Housers” out there who could adequately take on the job. Why? For better or worse, life experience counts for something in our society If there’a very brilliant young person out there that the country loves, he can always run for Senator or Governor and gain some political experience while waiting to turn 35. In a few years, he can be elected President in a landslide if the country trusts him that much. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/59 "2004-11-18T23:54:58Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > It’s an arbitrary number, and the only reason we’re to believe it’s The Appropriate Age For A President is that this guy and a 200 year old piece of paper say so. Yeah, you’re right. The whole Constitution is a cruel sham. Oh, wait, we’ve been here before. > [@](#): > > If we’re supposed to believe 35 year olds are better suited simply because “wisdom and age are highly correlated”, then why not just make the oldest person in the country President? Careful, that slippery slope is covered with Ben-Gay! > [@](#): > > I’m sure you could also find 12 black people from the time of slavery who believed the propaganda telling them they were inferior, just as you can find some teenagers today who don’t believe they should have rights. Doesn’t mean they’re right, though. Somehow Alexander Hamilton doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who believed himself inferior to anyone. Too bad he believed he was a better shot than Aaron Burr. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021/60 "2004-11-18T23:57:42Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > The youngest possible age to be a U.S Representative is 25. The median age of the country is about 33. Yet the median age for members of Congress is [53](http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/usgovt/legis/timchcon.htm). > > Theoretically, we could have a 35 year old President. Yet in the entire history of the Republic, the youngest President we have ever elected was 43 (John F. Kennedy). A full 8 years over the minimum. Indeed. I don’t think we’d see a young President or Senator any time soon. It’d be nice to at least see some young candidates, though. > [@](#): > > Even if we completely eliminated the age limit for the Presidency, I very much doubt we’d see a President under 40 get elected. What that says to me is it can’t hurt to get rid of the restriction. The age limit is not what keeps us from electing some “young and malleable” candidate; voters can decide for themselves whether someone is experienced enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-arnold/275021.md?page=4)