As I was mulling over this controversy over the citizenship of Obama, a very interesting thought came to mind. It has to do with the qualifications of the President in regards to what the Constitution demands. Now the Constitution declares that there be two criteria that a person must meet in order be qualified, age and citizenship, nothing else.
Without considering any of the amendment related to this, we find what I consider very interesting ideas of the founding fathers. The first interesting thing is the fact that a person needed to be only 21 years of age in order to vote. At the time, many persons far younger than that fought and died in the Revolutionary war, some 15 and 16 year olds. So, what was so magical about the age of 21 that fighting and dying for your country was not considered as a relevant criterion? Alternatively, maybe we need to ask the question in regards to the idea of voting itself. What were their ideas about voting that they saw the age of 21 as the proper age to vote?
A person needs to be 25 years of age in order to be a representative of the House of Representatives. In other words, a person could be eligible to vote but not represent the people in Congress.
A person needs to be 35 years of age to be a member of the Senate. Lastly, a person needs to be 35 years of age in order to be the President. We could ask the same questions in regards to these offices too
There is no age requirement for a Supreme Court Justice.
Citizenship or residency requirements differ also. A Representative must be a citizen for at least 7 years. A Senator must be a citizen for at least 9 years. The President must be naturally born with 14 years. How many years are required for a Supreme Court Justice?
Now, what makes this all interesting? The private sector is not allowed by law to discriminate yet the law allows it in the public sector. The voter can use any criteria of qualification he wants and that includes discriminatory means to cast his vote. This means that the voter is allowed to vote for or against someone simply on the basis of race, religion, gender, age or nationality. Furthermore, we know for a fact that people do. Knowing this makes me wonder why there are no mass demonstrations against this practice. Why is it condoned in the public sector but not in the private sector?
If it is the people who are the leaders of this nation as some proclaim then it is up to the people to lead by example. We end up here with the people declaring a do as I say not as I do example. Treat me as I demand to be treated but only expect that I’ll treat you anyway I want to. It would seem to me that the people should treat everyone alike regardless of whether he is in the public or private sector of this society.
Then she just turns and with an upturned nose and a humph of disgust begins to walk away, leaving everybody scratching their heads and looking wide-eyed at each other.
9 comments:
Happy New Year to you and yours and please be safe MY Friend
You make a very good point, at least I believe you make a very good point. I'm not really sure 'cause I'm very sleepy. I'm going to go take a nap and come back later, either today or tomorrow, Griper. Perhaps my brain will work better then. In the meantime HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Age requirement for public office; what a way to start the new year. :) We should suppose that the founding fathers debated it some, probably judging maturity (which may have been different in those times). It has also been noted that English common law was viewed as a precedent. We may ponder that private business does not have a 'constitution', although a number of businesses hire only 18 and over (for whatever reason). Generally, we start at the bottom, be it private or public sector, so experience becomes proportional with age; experience, not wisdom..and it may be that the founding fathers sought a combination of both.
Then again, we all have our own
POV: at my age, anyone not yet retired is but a kid. :)
i got a feeling BB that you see the dilemma of it. regardless of how you try to justify it brings questions. think about it, constitutionally, a 15 or 16 year old kid can be a Supreme Court Justice but can not vote. lol
"POV: at my age, anyone not yet retired is but a kid. :)
and here I heard that all retirees were those entering into their second childhood. :) i think you and i are good examples. we have too much fun with politics to be called, by some, as adults. even though we say things about it in a sincere manner.
Interesting that there is no age requirement for Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps the founding fathers considered appointment by president and confirmation by Senate would keep SCOTUS a dignified group. There have been
some peculiar folk sitting there. It is said that Caligula nominated his horse
Incitatus as Consul..whether the
Senate ratified is lost in the ruins of antiquity. So, it may be possible, in the future, that we
be treated to a 'kindergarten court'...although it boggles the imagination...:) As for our second childhood...how did you learn of my shirt that says 'Still Plays With Trains'?
"that we
be treated to a 'kindergarten court'."
if you think about it, BB, that is not as farfetched thought as one would think.
both parties want judges that interpret the Constitution that will fit their political thinking. and they want a sitting judge for as long as possible. that means appointing young judges. look at the ages of the last couple of judges appointed. we have a chief justice that could very easily be in that chair for the next 40 years.
as for the shirt, my party shirt says, "warning, having sex with me is rape"
I've always wondered about Supreme Court Justices being allowed to hold office for life.
About that shirt, Griper, you aren't ever going to get anywhere that way! LOL!
awwwwww, gayle, everything has to have a warning label on it these days, didn't you know that?
Post a Comment