Age limits for service, in Constitution, is WRONG

I would like to bring to the attention to the readers of this thread two, IMO, very valid points. The point of my posting it here is to get a general consensus of what you all agree, that way I can get an idea of what the US at large will think.

1) I, as a 19 year old citizen of the Great US of A, have the right to vote in an election. In fact I voted for my Barack Obama in the most recent. So I realize I have the RIGHT to vote for my representation (aka Have someone else represent me) . I, however, DO NOT have the RIGHT to run for election as a Senator of my state and represent myself?

2) In a TRUE DEMOCRACY, the burden is on those running for office to convince the public that THEY represent their best interests, and are the best man/woman for the job. I don't care if a child is 4 years old and convinces the public they are the right toddler for the job. If a child can do that, than why can't they become Senator or President?


Conclusion: If the USA valued itself as a TRUE place of freedom, it would allow me to run as a Senator of Ohio. It is MY OPINION, that I do not have the RIGHT to PROPER Representation, Freedom of Life and Liberty, OR the Pursuit of Happiness until I have the ability to run for Senator of my great State of Ohio.

For those that wish to prove me wrong that, the Constitution is right in this regard. I demand you prove to me that America loses ANYTHING by amending this RIGHT to run for office to the age of citizenry, 18. What do we have to lose right? I still need to convince my fellow Ohioans that I can be their acting senator. This is only AFTER I talk to Sherrod Brown and convince him to bring it up in Congress.

[edit on 5/20/10 by ElijahWan]

reply to post by ElijahWan


I have to agree, and it's something I've thought about myself. If the people decided that you were the right person to represent them, then your age shouldn't matter at all. If you are too immature to be a good senator, for example, then that should be up to the voters to decide.

When you are 40 and look back on what you were like at 18 or 19, you'll understand why a minimum age limit is in order.

reply to post by ElijahWan


Well there is certainly nothing wrong with questioning any and all
aspects of our constitution, if you feel that a change may be necessary.
Making a change however is a whole other ball game. Out of curiosity, have you checked into age requirements at a city council or county
level? Most senators, did not become senators overnight, or in a short
period of time. Maybe you can start at a lower level and work your way up if that is what your goal is, to be a senator someday.

To help you out, here's a little information on your question of senate
age requirements and the reasons of our founding fathers for setting those age limits:
============================================

Constitutional Qualifications

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention supported establishing membership limitations for House and Senate members. Influenced by British and state precedents, they set age, citizenship, and inhabitancy qualifications for senators, but voted against proposed religion and property requirements.

Age: The constitutional framers debated the minimum age for representatives before they considered the same qualification for senators. Although Delegate James Wilson stated that “there was no more reason for incapacitating youth than age, where the requisite qualifications were found,” other delegates were in favor of age restrictions. They were familiar with England’s law requiring members of Parliament to be twenty-one or older, and they lived in states which either barred legislators under the ages of twenty-one or twenty-five from the upper chambers.

As introduced in May 1787, James Madison’s Virginia Plan left Senate age restrictions to the delegates to decide, only stating that members of the second branch must “be of the age of ____ at least.” Without debating the subject further, delegates voted in favor of filling the blank with thirty, and passed the clause unanimously on June 25, three days after designating twenty-five as the minimum age for representatives. In The Federalist, No. 62, Madison justified the higher age requirement for senators. By its deliberative nature, the “senatorial trust,” called for a “greater extent of information and stability of character,” than would be needed in the more democratic House of Representatives.

==========================================
source: www.senate.gov...



[edit on 20-5-2010 by manta78]

Eleven years from now, when you're constitutionally eligible for the US Senate, I want you to take a look back at your beliefs at the age of 19 and ask yourself a question: would I have voted for myself back then?

Age brings life experience and wisdom. Trust me...you'll be laughing at the foolishness of many of your current beliefs even by the time you reach 30.

speaking of age requirements
u dont even have to be human to be mayor

Town's Mayor, A Dog, Dies At Age 12

RABBIT HASH, Ky.
The dog mayor of Rabbit Hash has passed away.

The Rabbit Hash General Store confirmed Thursday that
Junior Cochran died two days before his 13th birthday,
Cincinnati television station WLWT reported.

Junior Cochran was elected mayor with more than 3,000
votes in November 2004. A documentary aired on Animal
Planet about the black Labrador in 2006.

The store could not say what would happen next, but said
that word on the street indicated that previous contenders
Marty the mule and Charlie the chicken would have a runoff.

www.wftv.com...


[edit on 20-5-2010 by boondock-saint]

Originally posted by vor78
Eleven years from now, when you're constitutionally eligible for the US Senate, I want you to take a look back at your beliefs at the age of 19 and ask yourself a question: would I have voted for myself back then?

Age brings life experience and wisdom. Trust me...you'll be laughing at the foolishness of many of your current beliefs even by the time you reach 30.

I completely disagree. Time passing, which Age represents, can bring experience and wisdom. But that doesn't necessarily mean my views will change. By 30 I'll be what...A corporate slave? In my opinion...It's not going to matter by the time I'm 30 or not. This is the exact reason I want the AGE taken off. If the people elect ANY citizen as their representative in Congress...It should be allowed. Same with president. That's how a democracy works...majority rule.

On a side note I intend to run for House of Reps before that...Perhaps I should get into this thing now...Or at least...Get into a local position until I can amend the Constitution. Each step up the political ladder only makes it easier for me to bring the vote for amendment up in Congress. The Higher I go...The more likely my senators will put forth my Amendment, as it will gain more and more local and state attention.

[edit on 5/20/10 by ElijahWan]

I wish I could agree with you.
As a matter of fact, when I was 19, I would have.

However, now approaching 40, I understand why the need for an age requirement.

Your beliefs will not be the same 15 or 20 years from now. I guarantee it.

If they are the same, that would only mean that you have not evolved over 20 years, which would be pathetic.

Originally posted by Oaktree
I wish I could agree with you.
As a matter of fact, when I was 19, I would have.

However, now approaching 40, I understand why the need for an age requirement.

Your beliefs will not be the same 15 or 20 years from now. I guarantee it.

If they are the same, that would only mean that you have not evolved over 20 years, which would be pathetic.

Okay...But as a matter of being politically correct. Any amount of time that passes, I should have evolved in terms of my beliefs. I'm not saying I won't learn knew things....Just simply that my viewpoints on politics, the world at large, religion, social values ect....won't change in 11 years. That's my point.
But again, the argument here isn't CAN I get elected or DO I have enough experience. The Question here is

1)Why can I VOTE for representation, but NOT represent myself?

2) In a True Democracy, shouldn't it be 18? This is discrimination on the basis of Age.

Those of you who disagree with the OP sound quite ageist to me. Anyone under 30 is incapable of having valid political views?

What about the other end of the spectrum; senators who are so old they are completely out of touch with modern society & technology?

How can a person be expected to reasonably vote on technology for their people when they are unable to relate to either?

reply to post by ElijahWan


You may disagree now, but again, look back in another decade or two. You'll be surprised at just how much change occurs in what you believe to be true. At least a few of them will be the polar opposite of what you believe today. Trust me...we're telling you this from experience, not only in our own lives, but watching our friends and family as they age as well. It happens to everyone.

My advice to you is to pay your dues like everyone else. Work your way through the ranks at the local and state level and quit complaining about the age requirement. Another fact of life: The ripe old age of 30 is going to sneak up on you a lot quicker than you think, anyway. If you can prove your worth there and develop a consistent track record, you might make it.

As a fellow 19 year old, i have to disagree. I think you are undervaluing experience. I'm not talking about work experience or political experience, but life experience, wisdom.

You wont get elected as a senator as a 19 year old. Use the next 11 years to build up your political experience with whatever municipal or state positions you can get. This may not make you any better of a senator, but it is necessary to build a record that proves your competence and political views to the people that may vote for you.

And by the way, you're right, this isnt a "TRUE DEMOCRACY", it's a republic. We have a republic to prevent outright "mob rule", or majority rule..

Also funny how you think true democracy includes you representing other people. When i think of true democracy, i think of an equal voice for every man.

To all those saying that this youngins opinion will change over the course of time it takes for him to be eligible, I agree. Also realize that the people of his state could just choose not to vote for him and his beliefs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he should be allowed to run, but only a fool would vote for him.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Raustin]

First off come out of fantasyland. You don't know dick. To think you have anywhere near the life experience to make decisions for millions of people is laughable at best. If you don't think you have a whole bunch more to learn before taking on such responsibility, then you are have some tough going ahead.

Do not become a life politician. That is exactly what is wrong with our system and what successful candidates in the future will have to avoid. Build up your name over the next 11 years so that when you are eligible you have a chance. You need to have a profession other than politician or statesman.

There is no law that says you can't start your campaign for 2022 now. Put out a press release. It will probably get some attention due to the novelty of the early campaign. Then ramp up the publicity in each following year. Come 2022 you may have a chance if you can show that you have the right mettle and experience.

Here is your reason the fact that you don't even know and even understand that we were not founded as a democracy, and the current socialist democracy we find ourselves in is illegitimate. And our founders hated democracy.

IOW you don't have the life experience that gives you the wisdom and judgement needed to speak for the people of your area. On the other hand congress is populated with people of all ages who never had it and never will.

I'm young and I can understand why some people think we should have to wait until we are of age to even represent our interests on a federal level. But I think a lot of people also don't see how much different my generation has grown up than yours. We have been exposed to all the "silly" things you've done, of the 70s, 80s, and 90,s...crucial times in history. Things are different now.

One additional thing that has to be considered is the following:
=================================================
The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

source: www.usconstitution.net...
================================================

Which as you can see in the second paragraph it could potentially take up to seven years for the bill to be approved as an ammendment to the Constitution.

Glad to see however that you now are at least considering a local city or county start as a first step.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by Kailassa
When you are 40 and look back on what you were like at 18 or 19, you'll understand why a minimum age limit is in order.

The point though is that you should be able to if you feel that person represents you best. I think the same should be allowed in Canada. Now, would I vote for an 16 year old? No lol. But should I be allowed? Sure, why not? I don't think it's the place of the government to put limits on my potential choices, even if some of those choices are probably bad ones. It's just the principle of it.

At 19... MAYBE you've been:
President of your school's class ASB.
President (or equivalent) of various school extra-curricular activities.
Captain of the baseball, basketball, football, soccer... teams.
...
Crew lead at Hardees or Carl's Jr.
Shift lead at Jack in the Box.
Head delivery driver at Little Caesars or Dominoes.
Assistant manager at WalMart, Target, K-Mart.
...
Oregon requires a high-school diploma to pump gas. Maybe you can do that.
...

Do you have a law degree? Business management experience?
Not at 19.

Sadly though, it also seems no one in government has similar experience either, yet they have pedigrees to back themselves up.

Would I vote for a 19 year old candidate for political office?
Just as quickly as I'd give a 9 year old a drivers license.

I appreciate all the replies I've gotten as it's given me some insight into how the public would view a 19 year old running. And yes, I agree with those of you who say I don't have the proper experience to run. But the point I'm making...Is if I can't find proper representation, that my only choice is to run. Without the ability to run, I can't represent myself adequately. Someone explain to me why I'm allowed to put my VOTE, which is my only political power, in someone else's hands...but I can't keep my own vote and ask for other peoples? Again, the point here IS NOT would I make a good candidate. The point here IS if you have the right to in a minor way affect politics. (Voting) Then why shouldn't you have the ability to represent yourself and your own people AS LONG as you are a citizen. Period.

[edit on 5/22/10 by ElijahWan]