Off format this week just for a little variety...I won't divide these by conservative/liberal
As regular readers know, I'm a fan of John Seary's arguments about the minimum age for elected officials. Currently the minimum age for President of the United States is 35, Senate is 30, and House of Representatives is 25. What should it be? Are there any other changes (in any direction) for qualifications for office that you would make?
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree that the age should be dropped to 18 for all three (and for all offices). It's not like we're going to start electing high school seniors to the White House if that were to happen -- the systems in place, including the free choice of the voters, will ensure that.
ReplyDeleteI think this (along with the "natural-born citizen" thing) are minor mistakes in the Constitution that resulted from the framers being the first to take a serious crack at this type of government. If the Constitution were rewritten today, I expect dropping those qualifications would be a no-brainer.
If there should be any age requirement at all, it should be the voting age. Maybe youngsters aren't competent to serve, but the question ought to be left up to voters. Relatedly, we should stick with our decision not to require that office holders own property.
ReplyDeleteYeah I'd go with 18 for all three. It's kind of weird we have this in the Constitution, after all there are no other major disqualifiers to weed out people. If you are going to have them at all, why not requirements about a minimum number years in public service instead?
ReplyDeleteI don't see that the current age requirements are hurting anything. The number of under 25 year olds who have enough life experience, connections with which to raise money, and personal charisma to get elected to Congress is insignificant. Same for the Senate and President. I'm glad rich kids can't go straight from college into Congress and wouldn't view allowing that as an improvement.
ReplyDeleteYou've partially convinced me about lowering the age to vote to something like 13, but I'm not at all sold that a change is needed for this. I can think of many more important changes to the Constitution that deserve support and passage before this one (or allowing non-natural citizens to be President).
I am also not concerned about the age restrictions on office holding.
DeleteHowever; in response to the original question, I don't see the need for *any* constitutional restriction on who can run for House, Senate, or President.
I am somewhat persuaded by arguments against seeking a 3rd term.
I think I'm on the same page as a lot of folks - don't see these age requirements as problematic from a policy standpoint, but they are unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteIf you can vote for the office, I see no reason why you can't run for it. I'd drop all three to 18.
I assume the age requirement is based in the unfounded notion that with age comes wisdom.
ReplyDeleteBut, what you and the other commenters are overlooking is that there is a big change in mental maturity that happens after the late teens, and it is based in physiological development in the brain. Prior to that, judgment and critical decision making are poor.
Still -- you're asking the wrong question.
The right question is - what should the qualifications be?
I'll suggest that 1) passing a civics exam and 2) demonstrating a thorough understanding of the Constitution be placed rather high on the list.
Cheers!
JzB
Fun fact: the tests you propose were staples of the Jim Crow voter suppression regime.
DeleteI figure that if you're old enough to vote, yo're old enough to run for office.
ReplyDeleteWhich means I need to figure out how I'd answer your *other* question.
Keeping in mind, as others have noted, that *running for* is unlikely to mean *getting elected*, especially to federal offices, for very young candidates. It has not been all that uncommon for younger candidates to be elected to city councils across the country.
DeleteAge limits: Candidates for President must be old enough to qualify for full Social Security (currently 67). Candidates for Senator must be older than the minimum age for recieving Social Security (currently 62). Candidates for the House must be younger than that minimum age.
ReplyDeleteWe need to weed Congressmen out before Alzheimer's gets them. And we need to dissuade them from raising the onset of Social Security to insane levels.
If anything, a maximum age limit makes more sense than a minimum. I don't think we really need either, but it seems like voters are far more likely to vote into office a candidate 'too old' to discharge his duties competently than one 'too young'.
ReplyDeleteOther changes: Take out the natural-born citizen requirement for the presidency. Substantially reduce (to as little as one day) the duration of citizenship a person needs to run for House/Senate. Remove all religious requirements from state constitutions.
ReplyDelete