The story

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

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


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

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?


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)


Watch the video: Menta Historie STX: Kildetype (May 2022).


Comments:

  1. Mataxe

    I'm sorry, but I think you are making a mistake. Email me at PM, we will discuss.

  2. Lyn

    Remarkable, this very valuable opinion

  3. Kearney

    I suggest you to visit the site, with a huge number of articles on the topic of interest to you.

  4. Greg

    Sorry to interfere, but could you please describe in a little more detail.



Write a message