If so, then why?

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

        Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

    • takeheart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The 35 year old requirement seems bizarrely high to me, I can’t see why a smart and capable 32 year old should be prevented from running for the office. A minimum age makes sense, but it’s weird that it’s far removed from when most states start to legally treat kids as adults (anywhere from 16 to 21).