why did they choose the minimum age to be 35, and not 30 or 40?
2007-12-02 16:12:14 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I reckon because our fore fathers put it in the constitution, you also have to be born here or live 14 yrs as a citizen to qualify,
OMG some day we could have Prez Swartzenhager ( sorry can't spell foreign words)
2007-12-02 16:23:32 · answer #1 · answered by Judy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Back then, the Framers believed that 35 was a good age of maturity. At that age, many men have already been working and having several children. Times have changed now and if the Constitution were written today, the minimum age would surely be raised.
Now 50 is the new 35.
2007-12-02 16:15:55 · answer #2 · answered by Andre 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Experience mainly.
If you think about it, the age limit should probally be raised to 45 or 50 years old now.
When they set the age limit at 35, the average life span was only around 45 to 50 years old.
Now that the average life span is arounf 75, it would make sense to increase the age requirement.
2007-12-02 16:38:09 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The founding fathers thought that 35 was an age where you will have had opportunity enough experience in life to be prepared to run the country.
2007-12-02 16:16:52 · answer #4 · answered by TC 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At 33, I look back at what I believed at 23 and the difference is shocking. I didn't even know what I didn't know. I'm thinking the founders assumed by 35 you would know your mind, would have sown whatever wild oats needed sowing and had settled down, had gotten an education, gotten several years of work under your belt. Not to mention developed a sense of humor about yourself and grown a thick skin.
2007-12-02 16:21:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because people under 35 don't know enough about how to manage critical situations.
2007-12-02 16:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by Agit8r 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
One because that's the law...
Secondly few younger than 35 do not have the experience for the job.
2007-12-02 16:15:50 · answer #7 · answered by ♥♥The Queen Has Spoken♥♥ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't have enough experience in much of anything to be the leader of our country.
2007-12-02 16:14:46 · answer #8 · answered by librarya2o 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because of the saying...with old age comes wisdom. Actually because back in the day people didnt live that long so 35 was considered an older person. So i guess the framers of the constitution considered that a good age.
2007-12-02 16:15:23 · answer #9 · answered by FishyFace 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't think there should be a minimum age. If it's a democratic vote, and there's an age limit on voters' ages, I don't see why a 10 year old couldn't be a great leader. Actually, I may have too much faith in the average intelligence of our country's voters... *cough HOWTHEHECKWASGEORGEBUSHREELECTED? *cough
2007-12-02 16:15:59 · answer #10 · answered by AH 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋