I realize that “life expectancy” has more to do with surviving childhood than anything else, but it still looks as if 35 was a pretty advanced age at the time the Constitution was drafted. A lot of people died before they got that “old.” At a time when people regularly remain relatively healthy into their 80s, it’s hard to believe that anyone would support a teenage presidential candidate, or would have any reason to do so.
But Bob Dole and John Kerry were senators before running for the presidency. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan were governors. That’s called political experience. My point was that an 18 year old has no experience in government specifically and a strong lack of experience in anything else. Clear things up for you?
Lack of experience described as new perspectives…that’s cute. This is one of - if not the - most important postitions in the world. It’s one of the most powerful positions on the planet. New perspective have their place in goverment, but the presidency is not the place for rookies.
Not to hijack the thread, but my knowledge of government is weak. Is there an age restriction on any other government position (i.e. senator/representative/governor)?
As I’ve said, history has consistantly shown that the American People have preferred people who are 10, 20, even 30 years over the age minimum. Average age upon inauguration is 55, over 20 years above the minimum. 200 years have passed and the youngest President elected was nearly a decade over the minimum. To be perfectly blunt, we haven’t even come close to wanting a young person as President.
Restrictions based upon age are not of the same nature as restrictions on gender, race, and national origin. The unfairness level, if there is any, just isn’t the same. You’ll always be able to grow out of those restrictions. You can’t grow out of being born in Canada.
Let’s keep this topic to one subject. Adding another provision to this proposed amendment is just going to make it more likely to fail.
To expand upon that last sentence: I believe adding that provision would make it certain to fail.
Back in 2002, there was a measure that went to the Oregon voters over lowering the minimum age to be a Legislator from 21 to 18. If I remember correctly, the measure failed something like 80% to 20%. And Oregon is one of the more liberal and tolerant states out there! We approved assisted suicide for gods sake! and although we passed the gay marriage ban I can at least say it had the lowest margin of victory of any state. The country simply isn’t ready for an 18 year old President.
So then, you’d support eliminating the age restriction and simply requiring that the President must have experience in another branch of government? I mean, if you’re worried that young people might not have enough political experience, why not just measure their experience directly?
And also inaccurate. Lack of experience is not what I was referring to. Younger people on average tend to have different opinions and place different priorities on different issues than older people.
I would never vote for Arnold - I dont find him or his political stances to be all that offensive (at least no more than most politicains out there), I just don’t think he packs the gear to be an effective politician (unless you define effective as ‘people will vote for him’, which is admittedly a fair definition). However, I fully support amending the constitution to allow a naturalized citizen to run, even if it would mean Arnie would serve two terms. To put it in a nutshell, if something is right (in this case, I believe allowing for foreign born presidents to be right), take the opportunity to make it so, even if the others working with you are doing it for the wrong reasons. If I think it’s right, then to say ‘except for Arnold’ would be hypocritical; if things were the way (I believe) they should be, he would be able to run anyway. We (the people of the US) should be able to decide who should be president, and if we want a foreign born pres, then we should have one.
I also have to back Mr.2001 on the age restriction thing; most of the complaints his detractors are throwing out are practical concerns, and would prevent a president under the age of 35. We haven’t had less than 8 years older than the minimum yet, probably for many of the reasons already stated. Why put a restriction in that is covered by practicalities. For a sub-35 year old to have a shot at a serious run, he or she would have to be a pretty extraordinary person, and someone that extraordinary would probably be qualified. To echo my above statement, we should be able to choose who should be president, and if we want a 28 year old president, then we should have a 28 year old pres. I fully believe that there are 28 year olds out there that would have done a better job than some of the presidents we have elected.
(Now the real reason I even posted ) - Bryan Ekers, I know that this was a joke: " Too bad [Hamilton] believed he was a better shot than Aaron Burr.", but I thought I’d nitpick it anyway - I’m pretty sure (but I can’t provide any online cites, but not for lack of trying - sorry. It is detailed pretty well in the book Founding Brothers, by Joseph J. Ellis, however.) that Hamilton tried to avoid the duel, and tried to come to an agreement with Burr through backchannels, but eventually felt he had to duel to maintain face - in that era, duels were rare, but it still would have been deemed cowardly in some circles to avoid one. Some people also claim that Hamilton either fired first and missed on purpose, or that he only fired after hit, when his finger convulsed on the trigger of his pistol (he did write the night before that he planned to ‘reserve and throw away’ his first fire).
No problem. I recommend a whimsical novel by Micheal Kurland called The Whenabouts of Burr which discusses parallel universes where the duel had a different outcome, or wasn’t fought at all.
Very interesting. I always felt that the US lost a great mind and statesman when Hamilton was killed, and considering the youth of our nation at the time, he could have put an even bigger footprint in history than he already did. Instead, Burr lived. What is Burr known for other than killing Hamilton in a duel? I might have to check that book out.
It was no secret who the first president would be. The new government wasn’t going to be formed before 1789 and Washington would almost assuredly want more than a single term so no one else had any reason to expect an opportunity for the next ten years. By that time even the youngest delegate ( Johnathan Dayton of New Jersey despite Charles Pinkney’s dishonest claim to the contrary. ) would be eligible. None of the Framers’ personal ambitions were being thwarted by this clause.
I’ll make no apology for my nitpicking. That’s not how duels worked back then. Legend has it that Hamilton deliberately missed and that is not as unlikely as might seem to us today. It’s possible that was his intent because the point of a duel was to be fired upon rather than the reverse. Hamilton’s honor had been challenged. He could not defend it by shooting but only by being shot at or by resolving the affair before it came to the field.
The duel demonstrated a man’s ability to control himself. He gained honor by standing there as another man shot at him. He didn’t go there to kill his opponent and doing so was likely to cause trouble both social and legal. Even practicing your aim before an engagement was considered bad form. I suggest reading Joanne Freeman’s “Affairs of Honor” which not only explains these trivial matters but will transform your understanding of the early Republic.
And Oregon is one of the more liberal and tolerant states out there! We approved assisted suicide for gods sake! and although we passed the gay marriage ban I can at least say it had the lowest margin of victory of any state. The country simply isn’t ready for an 18 year old President.
) - Bryan Ekers, I know that this was a joke: " Too bad [Hamilton] believed he was a better shot than Aaron Burr.", but I thought I’d nitpick it anyway - I’m pretty sure (but I can’t provide any online cites, but not for lack of trying - sorry. It is detailed pretty well in the book Founding Brothers, by Joseph J. Ellis, however.) that Hamilton tried to avoid the duel, and tried to come to an agreement with Burr through backchannels, but eventually felt he had to duel to maintain face - in that era, duels were rare, but it still would have been deemed cowardly in some circles to avoid one. Some people also claim that Hamilton either fired first and missed on purpose, or that he only fired after hit, when his finger convulsed on the trigger of his pistol (he did write the night before that he planned to ‘reserve and throw away’ his first fire).