31

According to Presidential eligibility conditions, a President can serve if they are at least 35 years old:

  • be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
  • be at least 35 years old;
  • be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years

The second condition seems to have been a great trouble for some candidates:

Many youth rights groups view current age of candidacy requirements as unjustified age discrimination.

In 1972, Linda Jenness ran as the SWP presidential candidate, although she was 31 at the time. Since the U.S. Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be at least 35 years old, Jenness was not able to receive ballot access in several states in which she otherwise qualified

Also, quite a few Western / developed states have age requirement as low as 18 years old: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France.

Why not lower this threshold? It seems that in US it is quite hard to become a young president anyway.

Michael Benjamin
  • 10,337
  • 5
  • 37
  • 41
Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345

4 Answers4

85

The reason for the founding fathers to do this was in part because they viewed the President as supposed to be an elder statesman who had shown through his career to be reliable in his values and not prone to the changing whims of the public, as well as effectively lead the nation and represent a generally unifying acceptance of a large majority of people over a wide majority of states as the job would largely be the guy who has to represent the nation to the rest of the world.

Of all the age restrictions in the Constitution, it is the oldest with Representatives needing to be 25 years old and Senators needing to be 30 years old. It should also be noted that the youngest person elected to President was Kennedy at age 43, and the youngest President ever was Teddy Roosevelt, who ascended from Vice President, following McKinley's assassination, at age 42. Most Presidents were in their 60s, with Donald Trump (70 at inauguration and 69 at election) edging out Reagan (69 at Inauguration, and when asked during a debate in 1984 if the age of the candidate should be a deciding factor, famously quipped that he "would not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His opponent, Walter Mondale, responded by visibly laughing on screen.)

jogloran
  • 107
  • 4
hszmv
  • 16,062
  • 2
  • 29
  • 53
  • 19
    This is the better answer because it addresses why it's in the constitution, not just that the requirement comes from the constitution. – Andy Feb 07 '20 at 15:48
  • 15
    For those who may be curious, Mondale was 56 in 1984, having been born in January 1928. – phoog Feb 07 '20 at 17:19
  • 19
    "who had shown through his career to be reliable in his values and not prone to the changing whims of the public" - heh. – Reasonably Against Genocide Feb 07 '20 at 17:26
  • 8
    @user253751: This is what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drafted the constitution. They also thought Americans would be more concerned about who's in charge of the Legislature than the Presidency (which is why the Legislature was written first). Naturally, what they wanted to happen and what the American People did occasionally did not align. – hszmv Feb 07 '20 at 17:36
  • 5
    This doesn't really answer the question, though. It explains why the requirement was in the Constitution in the first place, but not why it is still there. Which of course is (as @Colin's answer explains) because a) it is quite difficult to amend the Constitution; and b) not very many people would want such an amendment. – jamesqf Feb 07 '20 at 18:25
  • This excellent answer might be improved by citing actual statement(s) from one or more framers who stated this as the reason. – WGroleau Feb 08 '20 at 18:20
  • 65 is retirement age. Very few major companies hire a new CEO older than 65 for energy reasons. Why permit men over the age of retirement to run for an energetically demanding and strategically vital job? – bandybabboon Feb 09 '20 at 08:22
  • Great answer because it shows that this has nothing to do with brain development (?!) but about actually proving yourself over the course of a lifetime's career of service, something a lot of younger people seem to want to skip these days and go straight to the big job. Though I do agree that it would be completed by a citation or two, and by an analysis of why/how this rationale has survived to the current day (which is obvious but could be stated for a full answer). – Asteroids With Wings Feb 09 '20 at 15:17
  • 2
    @com.prehensible: 65 is only "retirement age" because of the actuarial needs of Social Security systems. It takes that long to collect sufficient taxes at a reasonable rate to pay benefits (and for a fraction to die before collecting). In the US one can start collecting benefits anywhere between age 62 and 70, and one need not actually be "retired" to do so. Plenty of people retire earlier than that, or keep on working longer - like my neighbor who was an active mining engineer (one that crawled around holes in the ground) well into his 90s. – jamesqf Feb 09 '20 at 17:47
  • For those who want to see the video of Reagan (Starts at 0:35) – Welz Feb 10 '20 at 03:03
  • @WGroleau I thought there was a link to something from Hamilton in comments to this question but it looks like they've been deleted. – Barmar Feb 10 '20 at 09:19
  • The question is "Why is the minimum age to be U.S. president still fairly high at 35?" (emphasis added). A complete answer should address the reason(s) that the requirement has not changed in modern times. – JBentley Feb 10 '20 at 10:11
  • The reason why it's still 35 is that it requires 2/3 of each house of Congress, and 3/4 of the state legislatures, to change it, and there is insufficient interest in doing so to pass those bars. – Monty Harder Feb 10 '20 at 16:27
42

The age minimum is set by the US Constitution. It is very challenging to pass constitutional amendments, and so far not enough people have both wanted to change and cared enough about changing the age minimum for it to be changed via constitutional amendmendment.

Colin
  • 4,511
  • 17
  • 35
  • 8
    I think the caring part is quite importanr. Most presidents are former senators, governors, or vice presidents and becoming any of those three is also quite difficult and takes time. So there simply isn't very many would-be good presidential candidates under the age of 35. – Magnus Jørgensen Feb 07 '20 at 13:49
  • 5
    ..... and the people most likely to benefit from such a change, even indirectly, are the least likely to vote, statistically. – PoloHoleSet Feb 07 '20 at 15:50
  • 17
    In addition to the "not caring enough" group, you'd also have to consider that there'd probably be a fairly large group actively opposed. – jamesqf Feb 07 '20 at 18:27
  • 9
    On top of this, we still have not had a situation where someone under 35 was a clearly and convincingly better person for the job than everyone 35 and older. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." – EvilSnack Feb 07 '20 at 22:43
  • 3
    @EvilSnack: AFAIK we've not even had a situation where a person under 35 could be considered a credible candidate. At least since Teddy Roosevelt, and he only became President because McKinley eas assassinated. – jamesqf Feb 08 '20 at 03:07
  • perhaps it's superfluous until candidates aged 38 and under manage to get around the deep state and financial barriers. – bandybabboon Feb 09 '20 at 08:25
  • 1
    @com.prehensible Please avoid conspiracy theories, such as "deep state", "CNN is fake news", etc. – Colin Feb 09 '20 at 18:24
  • 1
    next you will tell me that a "pac" is an academic political word... "deep state" is apt english to describe un-elected industry networks and covert influences that make political decisions regardless of elections on behalf of discreet markets... "deep" means "not-public/censored" and "state" means government. Can you find a better term to describe the plethora of hidden influences within governments than deep state? i.e. Superpacs are not publicly accountable as are voting machines. "Superpac" is more of a nonsense political term than "deep-state" what is genuine about democratic "pac" – bandybabboon Feb 09 '20 at 20:12
  • 2
    @jamesqf Indeed. I would guess that a majority would actively oppose. I would. It's hard to have the leadership experience needed to be President of the US before the age of 35. Some people may think they do, but they generally don't. I'd say it's even harder now than when the Constitution was written. Most people with significant leadership experience don't even start their careers until around 22 these days, later if they go straight into grad school. – reirab Feb 09 '20 at 20:28
  • @com.prehensible superpacs aren't a part of the state and hence aren't a part of the "deep state" conspiracy theory. – Colin Feb 09 '20 at 20:40
  • Superpacs comprise state employees voting for state representatives. political action commitees are politically powerless i supose then! doh. conflict of interests? yes. if you have a better word to collectively describe pacs, lobbies, shell companies used in politics, think tanks, media action commitees, fake research publications, political espionage/dirt digging, covert funding, hospitality agents, report fabrication, report manipulation, and all that stuff, then we can still refer to it as "deep state" influence mechanisms that fight access to power of non-career politicians. – bandybabboon Feb 09 '20 at 21:06
  • @com.prehensible please familiarize yourself with the definition of superpac: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs – Colin Feb 09 '20 at 21:48
  • An additional factor is that once you open the door for Constitutional amendment, there’s no telling what would get amended. In the current political climate I wouldn’t trust ANY proposal to amend the Constitution, especially with a weak ostensible reason like lowering the minimum age for presidential candidates. – Wildcard Feb 09 '20 at 23:52
  • @colin In the article your provided, notice that PAC donor disclosure rules are flawed and opaque, and that PACs are systemically corrupt "politicial influence finance management associations and groups" they aren't commitees! Okay, better english for "deep state" is "endemic administrative corruption" ... Lets say that endemic corruption strongly hinders all young US candidates from higher electoral campaigns. PACs are an un-accountable, silly named, facade for corruption... political nobility rule is endemic in The States. PACs are a hindrance to the voice of the people, a vox demos rag – bandybabboon Feb 10 '20 at 03:48
  • @Colin, the wiki articale on "Deep State" is far more sensibly written and intelligent than the article concerning "Super PACs" ... And all large centralized news companies are endemically biased and corrupt, including CNN, FOX, BBC, RT etc etc. Reconsider the academic use of notions of deep state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state#United_Kingdom – bandybabboon Feb 10 '20 at 06:40
  • We can’t say we’ve never had a credible candidate under 35 unless there has been someone under 35 publicly suggested for us to judge credibility. – WGroleau Feb 10 '20 at 15:56
  • @WGroleau: But we have. In addition to the Socialist Workers Party candidate mentioned in the question, there are the fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who I think have prompted this question. – jamesqf Feb 10 '20 at 17:44
  • "Credible" is rather subjective. I've heard from people who think it incredible that AOC got elected. – WGroleau Feb 10 '20 at 19:42
2

Your title question reads as a somewhat more mechanical point than your closing one, but perhaps I’m just mincing words.

Why does US still require the President a fairly high age (35) in order to be able to serve?

Possibly more daunting than the requirements needed to amend the constitution is the incentive to do so in the first place. From a standpoint of their job, members of congress are elected to represent the interests of the people of their state/district. From that perspective, it would be a poor use of the public servants’ resources to pursue a change few of their constituents want or care about. At the risk of stereotyping, as we age it is fairly common to view the inexperience of those younger than us as less suited to leadership than we like to think of our older and wiser selves. So with relatively little concern among the voting-eligible population and over 2/3 of that population being over 35, it seems most of the constituency is unlikely to want their representatives make this happen.

Then consider the composition of congress itself. The vast majority is well over 35. This implies you’d need 2/3 of a collection of people averaging well beyond 35 to vote for it even if it were gaining popularity among voters.

Why not lower this threshold?

I read this as more philosophically pondering whether there is reason for the limit’s existence. hszmv already spoke to the founding fathers’ reasoning. There are plenty of quotes attributed through centuries to famous elders maligning the youth of the day https://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-wrong-with-young-people-today.html and examples of youth discounting their elders (OK Boomer). Philosophical questions rarely have a single truth. Here’s a barometer. Think back to a 1/3 of your life ago. Do you feel you were better equipped to and likely to make better decisions then or now? There are other factors, but overall experience usually counts for something. Assuming we would like “the leader of the free world” to make good decisions, it’s not the worst limit in the world.

John Spiegel
  • 175
  • 6
1

Based on youth rights groups viewing the 35/yr age requirement for president as "unjustified age discrimination" and various western nations having 18 as the age requirement, "Why not lower this threshold?"

While the constitution does specify the age requirement, the age can be amended. Even so, why the age shouldn't be amended comes down to brain development into adulthood. The prefrontal cortex is the last part of the human brain to develop. Research indicates that the prefrontal cortex continues to mature into your 30s and reaches full maturation around 35 years old. The prefrontal cortex (the adult brain) is responsible for using reason rather than emotion to make decisions. Adults in the mid 30s forward are better at sorting, compartmentalizing, and understanding information in the world; therefore having a fully developed prefrontal cortex makes for better decision making, greater understanding, and better leadership skills overall. 18 year old's are often run by their emotions, whereas 35 year old's are run by logic and the ability to manage their emotions in an adult way to ensure decision making isn't purely emotional.

Mike.S
  • 43
  • 1
  • 3
    By that logic, wouldn't one need a maximum age as well? There comes a time when brains have difficulty with basic tasks like speech. – JJJ Feb 08 '20 at 12:39
  • 5
    @JJ for Transparency and Monica: This is false. There are DISEASES that cause mental difficulties, just as there are diseases like cancer & heart disease that cause physical difficulties, and the longer you live the greater your risk of getting any of them. But it's perfectly possible to reach 80 or even 100 without being affected. FTM it's also possible to be pretty darned dumb at any age :-( – jamesqf Feb 08 '20 at 16:55
  • 2
    @jamesqf yea, it's also possible to be of above average skills overall below the age of 35. On average, those aged above 35 may be more likely to have above average skills, but looking at it that way there's probably an upper limit where it starts to go down as well. So the argument is flawed in that way, I think, applying one standard to one group while not applying it to another group. – JJJ Feb 08 '20 at 16:58
  • 4
    @JJ for Transparency and Monica: Sure, but anyone below the age of 35 who has above average skills will eventually reach the age of 35 with those skills intact. (Barring premature death or disabling accident, of course.) OTHO, a person who reaches whatever maximum age you establish is not going to get any younger. – jamesqf Feb 09 '20 at 04:01
  • 1
    @jamesqf and they will have had a long time to run. I'm sorry to say, but this might well be part of America's downfall. An enormously powerful executive that just can't keep up with the world. The real tragedy is blindly following historic practices expecting they'll work just as well in the future. It may work for some time, but eventually luck runs out. – JJJ Feb 09 '20 at 10:23
  • 1
    @JJforTransparencyandMonica: Why do you think US Presidents "just can't keep up with the world" - whatever that's supposed to mean? Maybe you mean that some of them have ideas that aren't the same as yours? – jamesqf Feb 09 '20 at 18:03
  • @jamesqf I am not saying that. I'm saying that if you're going to put age restrictions on the lower end of adults (merely requiring candidates are of age seems uncontroversial), then you open the door to more restrictions. If you're going to put the average 25 to 35 year old against the average 90 to 100 year old person then the younger person is less likely to die or develop serious illness during the next term. Policy-wise, neither candidate is suitable because we talked about the average person. – JJJ Feb 09 '20 at 18:48
  • 1
    @jamesqf The average American doesn't have a college degree. And while were at education, why not include gender restrictions? The average female American outscores their male counterpart on many metrics. And if you contiune making such rules, you can exclude groups until you have no eligible candidates left. That's why I don't think it's sensible to exclude large groups based on how they score on average. – JJJ Feb 09 '20 at 18:49
  • 2
    Don't forget that many of those "youth right groups" are financed by 80-90 year old billionaires (like Soros). So it's basically 80-90 year olds telling teenagers "don't listen to your parents because they are too old to understand you", while making those teenagers malleable to whatever ideological or political agendas people much older than they parents are pushing for. – vsz Feb 10 '20 at 07:09
  • @JJ for Transparency and Monica: I'm not sure that I understand the point(s) you're trying to make. Presidents (and other elected officials) are not average Americans, by definition. They're not even average Presidential candidates, since the average candidate does not get elected. If a President dies in office, well, that's why we have a Vice President. Of the 8 who died in office, 4 were assassinated, 2 died of non-age related illnesses, and the other two (FDR & Harding) died before age 65, FDR of stroke, Harding either of a heart attack or poisoned by a jealous wife. – jamesqf Feb 10 '20 at 17:31
  • @jamesqf never mind, it seems we keep talking past each other. – JJJ Feb 10 '20 at 17:37