 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back |
Previous on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
Next on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
TheRealOrange
(167.176.6.8) on 4/19/2004 - 8:08 a.m. says: ( 4 views
)
|
"Because they set an arbitrary age..."
|
|
(EDITED BY AUTHOR: 4/19/2004 - 8:11 a.m.)
...for presidential eligibility over 200 years ago. One's judgment and maturity are hardly any more advanced for many (most?) people at age 35 than at age 27. As a licensed attorney and Army JAG Corps officer, I was held totally accountable for what I said and did when I was 27 years old. Also, the age requirement to become a member of the House of Representatives is below 27. Is that relevant? No. So, no, I don't think your assertion is right at all. I don't think the arbitrary age set for eligibility for the presidency has any bearing on the issue whatsoever. Anyone who is 27 years old, especially one who has completed college, should absolutely be accountable for what they say and do. Heck, legally people are held acountable for what they say and do once they turn 18 years old (and sometimes even younger). Now, how much of an impact those comments have 30 years later is debatable. If a person 30 years later says "Yes, I made those comments [or did those things] and I was wrong. I now believe [whatever]...." then perhaps the earlier comments/actions are irrelevant. But, the person is still accountable/answerable for them. JMO.
27 year olds run for the presidency? Probably because one's judgement and maturity level is still developing at that age. Right?
|
|
