9 ms·
There's a constitutional requirement that the candidate must be at least 35[1], which seems arbitrary to me. That was decided in 1787. I wonder what age they wo
by troyvit 2y ago
There's a constitutional requirement that the candidate must be at least 35[1], which seems arbitrary to me. That was decided in 1787. I wonder what age they would have picked as a maximum age back then. I say that because (at least these days) it seems almost impossible to change, and people live a lot longer. Like we might be stuck with "Any age between 35 and 57" because people died young in 1787 relative to now.
[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-...
- jjk166 2y agoIt's worth noting that the age requirements selected then were less about wisdom and experience, and more about residency in the US. The chief fear at the time was a European power manipulating the country to put a puppet in charge, so to avoid this they wanted to limit power to those who had resided in the US for a long time, but they also didn't want to preclude themselves from holding offices in the future. These numbers (35 for president, 30 for senator, and 25 for house representative) represent a compromise - note that the constitution's primary authors were 36 and 31 at the time it was signed, and the youngest signer was 26.
- Suppafly 2y agoI wonder if you can reliably adjust ages for 'inflation' like you can for other things. 35 back in 1787 has be to close to 50 or so today.