I understand that we don't want someone being 10 years old and running the country. However, isn't 35 a bit ridiculous. I can drink, buy cigarettes, drive, go to war and kill someone, but I can't be president? I don't understand how they arrived at such a high number. There are plenty of people in their 20's I think are capable of being able to run a country, and they probably wouldn't need so much vacation or nap time.
2006-11-07 08:13:10 · 8 answers · asked by jimmytownnative 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I understand the responsibility bit....but I thought that's why we voted on canidates. Why not let someone run, and then we the voters will decide they're too young....simply saying EVERYONE under 35 isn't qualified seems a bit radical.
2006-11-07 08:28:15 · update #1
some of these responses are very concerning. So young people have nothing to say, bad judgement, aren't responsible....heck, why even let us vote at all? It seems very egotistical to suppose that only old people are experienced. I know plenty of old people who are still quite dumb and have none of this so called wisdom.
2006-11-07 09:01:21 · update #2
People in their 20's and early thirties brains have not developed fully
2006-11-07 08:57:36 · answer #1 · answered by Zen 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is a senate age limit as well... you have to be 30 years old to be a senator. It is about responsibility, wisdom, experience, etc. One CANNOT be a good leader without experiencing the world and educating oneself.
It also helps prevent having someone "pulling the strings" of a younger person by an influential "adult" such as a parent or grandparent.
And just because you CAN do all of those things, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. Just goes to show that your judgement isn't at all what it needs to be if you're going to be the person with your finger on the nuke button.
2006-11-07 08:42:10 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
35 is the limit to change it will require a amendment to the constitution good luck on that! I would believe like the others the Idea was to have experienced leadership not the ignorant leadership of boy kings. Age does have it's advantages and experience is one of them as is not being prone to hormonal rages people that young are too unstable whether they want to admit it or not it's true.
2006-11-07 08:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it all has to do with your level of education, what political offices you've held in the past, if any. I know that I wouldn't vote for someone that just "jumps" into the race or someone who is younger than me (right now)... and I'm 26.
2006-11-07 08:23:28 · answer #4 · answered by Summer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're mature enough to kill, but not mature enough to accept responsibility of starting a war.
You have to have some life behind you to get a broad range of experiences. You're alot less likely to act on impulse.
But I question that reasoning over the couple of years.
2006-11-07 08:25:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
20 year old guys don't know shitfrom shinola. Some hot Chinese chick could talk you out of nuclear secrets.
2006-11-07 08:21:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll bet when you reach age 35 or so, you'll be glad there was an age requirement.
2006-11-07 08:16:53 · answer #7 · answered by Wego The Dog 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a lower age limit for the same reason there should be an IQ requirement. Had one been in effect, Bush would never have had the chance to rape America for his rich friends.
2006-11-07 08:38:00 · answer #8 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋