2007-09-02 07:56:11 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
that will eliminate most hippies, and who wants a hippy president.
2007-09-02 08:01:55 · answer #1 · answered by 007 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Age discrimination does not apply to requiring employees meet a minimum age, the term applies exclusively to discriminating against someone because they are too old (i.e. "I'm not going to hire him because he's 60"). The law only applies to persons over the age of 40.
If the requirements for the President to be 35, Senators to be 30 and Congressmen to be 25 were to be considered age discrimination, so would requiring bartenders to be 21. I doubt anyone would find that requiring someone who has essentially unlimited access to alcohol be legally old enough to consume the same was discriminatory.
2007-09-02 09:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anton G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell yes. If it weren't dictated in the Constitution, I would raise it. Look at the moron that is in the White House now. Look at all his conniving underlings. Do you think ANY of them has a clue? And they are all 35+.
Like Red Green says: Age does not bring wisdom. Sometimes age comes all by itself.
2007-09-02 08:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by nickap2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Christians! As human beings age, does their existence become much less helpful?" No. "i'm in basic terms asking if, as human beings age, do you think they lose fee as a guy or woman?" of path not why could you think of that? "lso, does race play a place in how significant a guy or woman is?" No. "Like if an elderly black guy dies, is it almost as tragic as whilst a youthful female dies? " Tragedy has not something to do with the cost of a guy or woman. it must be greater tragic if a youthful female dies than if an elderly guy or woman dies of old age because of the fact death as a results of old age is expected and part of existence, while if somebody youthful dies in an accident this is often considered as greater tragic. although the consideration of each guy or woman is the comparable. "ultimately, Christians, in case you should maintain a guy or woman, could you go with a youthful or older guy or woman and why?" nevertheless, you're confusing the consideration of a guy or woman. each guy or woman has the comparable dignity. i'm not likely to compliment one or the different. working example, if i can help shop a persons'' soul this is not significant in the event that they have been old or youthful because of the fact a saved soul is a soul in heaven. i don't see the component of the question. Euthanasia is faulty because of the fact it denies the consideration of the human guy or woman. each human has particular rights like the main suitable to existence, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in basic terms because of the fact they're human. selecting which guy or woman will stay has not something to do with it. Euthanasia isn't approximately selecting who will stay. this is approximately selecting who will die. And, that's what's immoral.
2016-11-14 00:19:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Actually that is really quite young. Do you seriously think someone with less years have the knowledge and experience in life to make the kinds of decisions and have the responsibility it takes to be President of the United States?
2007-09-02 07:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Just the law. Would take a change to the Constitution to change it. You also are required to be born here, is that racial discrimination if you are from another country.
2007-09-02 07:59:51 · answer #6 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No The Objective is to make sure who ever is president knows enough to do the job.
Look at Jesus. God did not have him start his job until he was 30.
2007-09-02 08:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by geessewereabove 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You could argue that point, but you have to have a certain number of years under you to have the life experience that is needed to run this country.
2007-09-02 08:03:10 · answer #8 · answered by Steven W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No unless u want a 10 year running the country
2007-09-02 07:59:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no
it was specifically written into the Constitution and thus is not subject to the whims of Congress or the Courts.
oh
2007-09-02 07:59:18 · answer #10 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it gives one to experience life, which in turn gives one better reasoning/judgment to make decisions that affect U.S. one way or another.
2007-09-02 08:00:36 · answer #11 · answered by Glen B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋