Do you think it is right that you need to be 35 years old to be President?

Question

Isn't democracy about the people choosing who represents them? Why can't they choose someone younger?

Answer 1

Yes it is to insure the individual has at least a degree of living experience. If you are hell bent to change it, then you need to work for a Constitutional amendment which requires approval by Congress and three fourths of the states. Good luck!!

Chow!!

Answer 2

We definitely know that 35 years do not guarantee sensible and intelligent governing. Just see Bush.

It probably should be changed to 35 mental years (and not physical years). But then, there will be legal challanges to claims of anyone's mental age. Probably a team of psychologists and social scientists could define some tests and do a screening for Presidential hopefuls. This again, while appears logical, would not guarantee 100%. Many a times, one's gut feeling, which could be contrary to logic, has worked. Past experience could be looked into - but it is not possible to compare achievements of two, say, senators. Looks to me screening by psychologists and social scientists might work.

Probably there should be more accountability to one's actions. Like there is absolutely no penalty imposed on Bush for the mess he has created in Iraq, If a President is periodically voted for agreeability of his actions/decisions, and penalties imposed directly and immediately, depending on how much people dislike/disagree, he would think more before acting.

Answer 3

younger I think they should be older at 35 you are not mature enough to handle the kind of responsibly a president has to, look at what Bush has done to this country and he is over 35. I thing maybe 50 hopefully a man or woman will have out grown the I know every thing stage by then.

Answer 4

I too think that is too young an age... IQ is not to be considered as wisdom... some of the highest IQ bearers I have met, have very little common sense.. so that does not become a criteria for holding that office. The most revered presidents of the past were not led by the level of their IQ but rather their common sense. I know of no one who would consider Einstein to be material for president... yet he had a pretty high IQ. There is a fine line drawn.

Answer 5

Anyone younger than 35 does not have much experience or wisdom compared to an older person that has been in the trade longer. Of course there are exceptions, but we are better off sticking like this.

Answer 6

Actually, it should be about 40. By the time a person has reached that age they're supposedly mature enough to make important decisions which affect millions of people. However, being older isn't always wiser - look at the current occupant of the Oval Office. He's about as stupid as a load of bricks. But, that age limit of 36 was set when people weren't living as long as they are now, which is why it should be raised to at least 40. At 36, a lot of people are still spending a lot of time partying and raising hell.

Answer 7

Yes. People change so much between 18 and 30. They are completely different people. They need general life experience. I do, however, have a problem with the native-born requirement.

Answer 8

No, it isn't. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that a 34 year old (there's no difference between 34 and 35!) couldn't be president?

Answer 9

I think an 85 year old with concerns for the country will be better.
He do not have to worry about self-interest groups, just do his job for the people while he still have time.

Answer 10

I think IQ is more important than age.

I would rather have a smart 34 year then a dumb 36 year old.