It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do you have to be 35 to run for president?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I think 35 is too young. That age was mandated when the average life span was approximately 60 years old.

Don't want to change it or anything, but just wanted to put it in perspective.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 


Your choice holds no water.

In that time period, he would be equivolent to a 35 or 40 year old now. Life span wasnt that much and people were just plain different.

The youth of today are NO WHERE near the caliber of their ancestors.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Lets have 18 year olds run for president. It should provide us with some funny sound bites.

Question- Why do you think you would make a good President?

Answer- I would make a good president because I cleaned my room without my mom having to tell me to. That shows I know how to do the right thing. It also shows that I have inititive, most people my age have to be told to take out the trash, not I sir. Just ask my mom. Also, I saved my allowance, which shows that I am fiscally responsible. When my friends was spending their allowance on parties I saved mine and bummed a few beers from them, but I never got drunk. That shows that I am personally responsible also.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I never voted for Obama, but remember old people voted Bush in, twice.

The constitution use to forbid women, blacks, etc from voting too. We can change that one rule.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zillah
 


LOL!

got ya beat!


Clinton!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
There was actually a thought-process behind this. When the two Houses of Congress were created the framers of the Constitution considered who should be representative of "the people" (thus a representative republic). The House of Representative was created as a direct conduit from the people to the nation's Capitol. It was expected that these representatives would be passionate and rash, just like their constituents, but should be adult enough, with enough life experience, to be able to pass bills and debate issues reasonably. So the age of 25 was chosen as a good "young adult" age to carry those responsibilities.

When any bill is introduced to the Senate for review, they are required to take their time with it, and to be tempered by their life experience and more advanced age. Also, Senators are expected to be held more aloof from the people, which is why the Senate was to represent the states as a whole. The supposed maturity required to be a Senator was set at age 30.

The de facto leader is expected to be the most level-headed of the bunch, and able to look at all angles of a problem before acting. So the advanced, elderly age of 35
was chosen for the President.

/TOA



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


yeah but if people truly followed the constitution ammendments werent necessary.


wait clue me in where it said women couldnt vote etc.

fat chance that it will ever be changed.
edit on 12-5-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Thoriumisbest
 

The youth of today are NO WHERE near the caliber of their ancestors.

Any facts to back that up? Or is that just your opinion?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by neo96
 


I never voted for Obama, but remember old people voted Bush in, twice.

The constitution use to forbid women, blacks, etc from voting too. We can change that one rule.


This is one reason young people should not run for President.

The Constitution never forbid women from voting. It just never specified by sex who could vote. Before the 19th ammendment you are referring to was passed some western states was already letting women vote and hold office. For example Montana elected a woman to the House of Represenitives in 1919. The 19th ammendment was passed in 1920.

All the 19th ammendent did was specify by sex who could vote, that erased the gray area.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Well considering that your brain is not even fully developed at the age of 17-18 Id have to say i would not want some one that young running the country sorry. don't worry bud just wait another 18 years and you might have a shot.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by neo96
 


I never voted for Obama, but remember old people voted Bush in, twice.

The constitution use to forbid women, blacks, etc from voting too. We can change that one rule.


This is one reason young people should not run for President.

The Constitution never forbid women from voting. It just never specified by sex who could vote. Before the 19th ammendment you are referring to was passed some western states was already letting women vote and hold office. For example Montana elected a woman to the House of Represenitives in 1919. The 19th ammendment was passed in 1920.

All the 19th ammendent did was specify by sex who could vote, that erased the gray area.

But, you admit that it forbid blacks from voting right?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by J2288
Well considering that your brain is not even fully developed at the age of 17-18 Id have to say i would not want some one that young running the country sorry. don't worry bud just wait another 18 years and you might have a shot.

Really, just tell me what's the worst thing that could happen?
Older people love RR and he was old and he couldn't even think for himself :/




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


It never forbid anyone from voting.

The states was held responsible for voting rights. They read the constitution and gave voting rights for the way they read it. Some states allowed free blacks to vote and some didn't. Some states allowed women to vote and some didn't. I bet you didn't know that in a few states poor white men were not allowed to vote also.

The ammendments you are talking about left no gray areas to forbid anyone from voting. Imagine the constitution said all men are allowed ice cream. Now it doesn't specify which flavor were are entitled to. Now 30 years later an ammendment is passed that specified that all men are allowed any flavor of ice cream they want.

Now the constitution never said that men are allowed one flavor. It just said we are allowed ice cream. Its the same with the voting laws you are referring to. It never said only whites, it said all men and some states interrpetted it as only a select few was allowed to vote. So we need ammendments to clarify the intent of the original wording.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I believe I can answer your question with 1 word: Temperance.

I imagine our founding fathers, much the same as most today, see only the impatience and bad judgement of youth, idealism is good, but is usually looked on as a liability.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


It never forbid anyone from voting.

The states was held responsible for voting rights. They read the constitution and gave voting rights for the way they read it. Some states allowed free blacks to vote and some didn't. Some states allowed women to vote and some didn't. I bet you didn't know that in a few states poor white men were not allowed to vote also.

The ammendments you are talking about left no gray areas to forbid anyone from voting. Imagine the constitution said all men are allowed ice cream. Now it doesn't specify which flavor were are entitled to. Now 30 years later an ammendment is passed that specified that all men are allowed any flavor of ice cream they want.

Now the constitution never said that men are allowed one flavor. It just said we are allowed ice cream. Its the same with the voting laws you are referring to. It never said only whites, it said all men and some states interrpetted it as only a select few was allowed to vote. So we need ammendments to clarify the intent of the original wording.


Ehh...you're sort of right
. The Constitution never outlined who couldn't vote, only who could, which were citizens. Blacks were only counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation in the House, but they were not citizens until the 13th Amendment. Even free blacks weren't allowed to vote until the 15th Amendment.

/TOA



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ehh you are right also, except for the part where you said blacks were not allowed to vote until the ammendment.

Some states was allowing free black men to vote before the ammendent and some wasn't.

Edited to delete a portion of my post as it could be construed as hostile. Not the intent of my reply.
edit on 12-5-2011 by Becoming because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 

I bet you didn't know that in a few states poor white men were not allowed to vote also.

Do you have any sources for that? I've never heard anything like that, so I just want to make sure you're telling the truth. Thanks.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


I'm not in the habit of doing someone elses homework for them. I should let you educate yourself since you are the one who thinks someone your age should be able to run for President.

But here is one out of many sources for you to read. I picked this one as it is the easiest to digest and it shows how states was the ones allowing certain citizens the right to vote and not the constitution. If you want more sources then type "did the constituition bann whoever from voting" and hit enter.

check out the years 1776 to 1874.

www.lwvabc.org...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Only a person less than 35 would ask that question.
I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but some things are too important to break into maturity rehearsing.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Heck, their should be more requirements for the office then there are. I don't see how a person can be allowed to be Commander-in-Chief and never commanded or served in the military. Giving a politician power over the button when he hasn't risked his life and been forced to sacrifice his time, freedoms and body is ludicrous.

And the fact that you are even asking this question, from the standpoint of feeling you should be able to and not just curiosity, shows why a person your age should not be President.
edit on 12-5-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join