An amendment to lower the age qualification for Senators and Representatives to 21

Topics:

• Should we lower the age qualifications for Senators and Representatives to 21?
• Why, or Why not?

There is a few pros and cons to this that I can find:

Pro:

• It would make it more equitable (age wise).
• Young people can have some good reform ideas too.

Con:

• With age comes wisdom.
• The Senate (they approve Treaties, Cabinet Positions, and Federal Court Positions; relates to the above).

No. Didn’t realize we were passing up 21+ year old Doogie Jeffersons.

My father had a saying, regardless of the stage in my life, that he knew more about being (16, 18, 21, 30, etc…) than I did because he’d been there. And he was right. I believe the architects of the constitution knew what they were doing by imposing the age restriction.

It’s hard to imagine that a 21 year old could fully understand the most pressing issues of the day: health care, social security, national security, and fiscal responsibility. They may be able to understand the issues in plain text, but very few posses the experience to comprehend the full implications.

You have the more interesting topics thread, I really have to give you that much!. I'd have to agree with Fife and drum about why the age limit is what it is now. Age does add perspective and clarity, items that one doesn't possess at 21. Living life a few years and getting to know human nature are good traits that a person needs to possess before being given power to substantially affect the country one way or another. I'm not certain that such a bill would be practical at any rate, since most people will vote for an older, distinguished looking gentleman, as opposed to a 21 year old kid.