3 ms·
One obvious reason is to prevent the offices from becoming de facto hereditary. It would be very hard to consistently pass an office from parent to child when
by pyuser583 4y ago
One obvious reason is to prevent the offices from becoming de facto hereditary.
It would be very hard to consistently pass an office from parent to child when the officer holder has to be at least 35.
Especially since there was already a de facto requirement the office holder be male, excluding older daughters.
- batch12 4y ago> Especially since there was already a de facto requirement the office holder be female, excluding older daughters Are you talking pre-US monarchies? If so did you mean to say not be female?
- pyuser583 4y agoSorry, I just fixed that. I didn’t mean monarchies per se. Plenty of things were passed father to son: titles, property, reputation.
- notahacker 4y agoAn interesting idea, but even in the 1700s it would have been easy enough to keep it in the extended family, should the voters have been in favour. The first US president to have kids was the beginning of the US' first political dynasty
- pyuser583 4y agoJohn Quincy Adams was elected two decades after his father left the White House. That’s not exactly reliable succession.
- notahacker 4y agoHe'd have been eligible for the presidency at the end of his dad's second term, if his dad had served one. The obstacle to reliable succession was voters, not age.