4 ms·
The thinking at the time was: how can someone under the age of 35 ever have enough accomplishments to be elected president? They believed that would only happen
by HaseebQ 2y ago
The thinking at the time was: how can someone under the age of 35 ever have enough accomplishments to be elected president? They believed that would only happen if they were the child of a famous person or former president.
The Constitution was largely written as a departure from the monarchical British system. By not allowing presidential candidates younger than 35, this would prevent hereditary transmission of the presidency. Past 35, a candidate is more likely to stand on their own merits rather than their family or connections.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway#:~:text=Madison%20also%20discussed,the%20national%20councils.%E2%80%9D https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-...
- flappyeagle 2y agoDoes someone who is 80 have enough brain cells left to be trusted in this job? How can they possibly?
- AtiRadeon9700 2y agoQuite right! We can only regret that similar minimum-age limits weren't put in place for other offices. Here in ye olde Europe (and I believe the same for the U.S.), it is unfortunately common to see extremely young, as in literal college students, parliamentarians -- most of them handsome, well-spoken and opinionated; and some also coincidentally the children of famous politicians or businesspeople :-)
- jjk166 2y agoIn the US there were similar minimum age limits for other offices. President was 35, upper chamber legislator 30, lower chamber legislator 25.
- lupire 2y agoWhy do you find it so offensive that people get to choose who they want to be their leader?
- vkou 2y agoAll people in all countries choose who they want to be their leader. If Russians didn't like Putin, they'd string his entrails up from a lamp post. All governments, democratic or despotic can only govern with the consent of their subjects. It's thus reasonable to dislike the precise mechanisms by which that consent (explicit and implied) is achieved in any particular country.
- beaglesss 2y agoThey really only need consent of 2-3% of very violent people and for the rest to non-violently not consent.
- vkou 2y agoMost people will become sufficiently violent if unhappy enough. The world's always three meals from anarchy.
- beaglesss 2y agoSometimes. On the other hand a surprisingly large number of women are raped and dont fight back because they are overwhelmed with various forceful factors. I imagine being raped feels quite unhappy, possibly even more so than missing 3 meals. I'll have to look more into the 'seasoning' islands full of slaves in the Caribbean during the slave trade years. IIRC they were treated as bad as you can get, were the majority, and didn't consent yet practically didn't overthrow their dictator in most circumstances (Haiti might count as an exception).
- rospaya 2y ago> All governments, democratic or despotic can only govern with the consent of their subjects. That's the definition of a despotic government - ruling without consent. Any rule comes from the end of a gun.
- mdp2021 2y agoBecause those "«people»" choose it for everybody else I.e., your statement is translated to "that large masses of possibly unqualified people choose wrongly qualified people as having power over other people, with important regard to people in their right mind". It is not a value; it is a concern tackled in systemic planning.
- sdenton4 2y agoOf course, seventy-five-year-old presidents can have 55-year-old kids... Oh, hey, GW Bush! Didn't see you over there!