20

Reading the list of presidential qualifications by country I have noticed that in many countries the minimum required age is 35 (some countries raise it to 40). I am wondering if there is any historical data related to where this limit comes from.

My assumption is that there must be a common source for this limit and it is not a coincidence that it is a shared value among so many states.

Question: Is there a historical source that might explain why so many countries use 35 as a minimum age for the president / the person holding the highest office?

Fruit Monster
  • 428
  • 2
  • 12
  • 26
Alexei
  • 1,117
  • 1
  • 9
  • 23
  • 6
    i would guess the idea is roughly based on the Roman cursus honorum. but why 35 i dont know. – ed.hank Jan 24 '20 at 13:12
  • 6
    Worth noting that 35 is often perceived to be the cutoff point between young and not young. Perhaps because 20s are unambiguously young and 40s are unambiguously not young, but 30s could go either way. So 35 is a mental midpoint at which people make the distinction - those below are lumped together with the 20s, and those above, with the 40s. – Semaphore Jan 24 '20 at 15:38
  • The 25 year minimum for serving in the U.S. House is like the 25 year requirement in Catholic canon law for becoming a priest. (The framers seemingly added five twice for the higher offices.) – Aaron Brick Jan 24 '20 at 16:49
  • 5
    When a life span was considered to be three score years and ten (i.e. 70), a man of 35 would have lived half of his life. – KillingTime Jan 24 '20 at 17:55
  • Isn't that also the age at which one is allowed to study the Qabbala? From memory. – MCW Jan 24 '20 at 21:06
  • 1
    Just a guess, but I would bet that most of those countries copied large parts of their constitutions from the US. After all, it seems to have worked fairly well... – jamesqf Jan 25 '20 at 05:14
  • When you are talking about president or similar position, you might want to specify if you are talking about a head of government, i.e. the one who generally has the final say in day to day politics, or about a head of state who formally holds the highest office. In some countries such as USA, both are the same but others separate them. So for example in Germany or Italy, the president is a largely ceremonial office, often given to some elder statesman. Consequently the minimum age is quite high. But the most important position is the chancelor or prime minister resp., without a minimum age. – mlk Jan 25 '20 at 13:14
  • @mlk - yes, I am aware of this (e.g. chancellors actually being the highest official in countries like Germany or Austria), that is why I said "... or similar position". I will adjust the question to be more clear. – Alexei Jan 25 '20 at 16:01
  • 1
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Villia_Annalis – Denis de Bernardy Jan 25 '20 at 18:24

1 Answers1

25

For the US, there's an article on Constitution Daily which says something about this. First it says:

At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there was little public debate about the age requirements and no discussion about the age requirement for the presidency.

Then it gets more helpful when it refers to James Monroe.

James Monroe also wrote about the presidential age requirement making it difficult for a father and son to serve in a dynastic way. “The Constitution has provided, that no person shall be eligible to the office, who is not thirty five years old; and in the course of nature very few fathers leave a son who has arrived to that age,” he said in “A Native of Virginia, Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government.”

Also, some clues can be found in what two founders said when discussing the senate and house.

The one discussion of note involved two important Founders: James Wilson, a future Supreme Court Justice, and George Mason, a constitutional dissenter. Mason, who was 62 years of age, argued that a requirement of 25 years of age was needed for the House because of his own experience. Mason said, “if interrogated [he would] be obliged to declare that his political opinions at the age of 21 were too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public measures.”

And there is also this.

Madison talked about the need for “senatorial trust” which required “greater extent of information and stability of character … that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages.”

Madison also discussed some points that some scholars believe led to the age requirements: a distrust of foreign influence and a fear of families trying to put children in place in federal office to serve in a hereditary manner. He feared the “indiscriminate and hasty admission” of people to Congress that “might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”

Going by this train of thought, the president should be even older but I admit it doesn't really explain why 35 and not 30.

Generally, maturity and experience are probably very important but some countries have very different age requirements, like only 18 in Croatia, France and Finland but 50 in Italy. (this is from Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Age of Eligibility for Election to the Office of President) Bill 2015: Second Stage)

Fruit Monster
  • 428
  • 2
  • 12
  • 26
  • 4
    Hmm, I'll bet James Monroe was really upset about his immediate successor then... – Darrel Hoffman Jan 24 '20 at 21:41
  • 1
    With 30 being the minimum age for senator, it seems like they went 25 for junior congressmen, 30 for senior congressmen, and then 35 for president seems logical (but then the fact that unless I'm missing something my 3 month niece could be a supreme court justice breaks that logic) – Foon Jan 24 '20 at 22:26
  • 3
    @Foon The difference is that Congressmen, Senators, and President/VP are elected by the people, and their judgement couldn't be trusted. Justices are appointed and approved by POTUS and Senate. Their judgemnent used to be assumed to be reasonable -- now I wouldn't be surprised if RBG were to be replaced by Ivanka. – Barmar Jan 25 '20 at 00:15
  • 1
    I'm not sure I understand what Monroe's point is? Is he saying most fathers die before their sons reach 35? – Azor Ahai -him- Jan 25 '20 at 03:11
  • @Fruit Monster, it is clear that something more explicit to prohibit dynasties should have been put in the Constitution. In recent decades, George W. succeeded his father George H.W. (a much better man than his son), Jeb nearly succeeded W., and Hillary nearly succeeded Bill. While any of them would have been a great improvement over Agent Orange, I would still like to see a ban on spouses, siblings, children and grandchildren (as well as nephews, nieces, etc.) of a president succeeding them. Do we need to worry about a parent succeeding their child? – Phil Perry Jan 25 '20 at 03:17
  • 8
    @AzorAhai I think he was saying that few fathers will have a 35-year-old son by the time they leave office. John Quincy Adams served 24 years after his father left office, and George W Bush was 8 years after his father. It's not really a dynasty if there are other presidents in between. – Barmar Jan 25 '20 at 07:38
  • @PhilPerry If son succeeds father, seems like a monarchy. And the US had just got rid of one monarchy. Maybe that's what they were thinking. – Fruit Monster Jan 25 '20 at 15:20
  • @Barmar: And if she'd been elected, Hillary Clinton would have taken office 16 years after Bill left, with terms as US Senator and Secretary of State in the intervening period. Why should marriage bar qualified people from holding office? – jamesqf Jan 25 '20 at 18:04
  • 1
    @jamesqf I never said it should. I was just explaining Monroe's reasoning. I doubt the idea of a spouse taking office even entered his mind. – Barmar Jan 25 '20 at 21:07
  • 4
    @jamesqf I don't think Monroe wanted to explicitly bar Presidents' sons from becoming president, he just wanted to make it difficult for fathers to install their sons as their successors. – Barmar Jan 25 '20 at 21:10
  • There's just something offputting to me that some close relation could succeed a president, even if someone else served a term or two in-between. At least in recent decades, it seems like they feel the presidency is "owed" to them. Why should we have Bushes and Clintons alternating most terms far into the future? There must be plenty of people who are equally (or more) qualified (obviously not Individual One). – Phil Perry Jan 25 '20 at 23:10
  • @Barmar it almost feels like laws should be explicit about what they want to do instead of trying to make up stuff that feels like it might work out. People who are 42 – Jontia Jan 25 '20 at 23:16
  • 1
    @Jontia You're suggesting that this was the specific intent of the rule, not just one factor that went into the decision. The answer lists a number of reasons. – Barmar Jan 26 '20 at 01:15