Hillbilly version: So our society has mandatory attendance laws for school age children. This is not news. It is a fact, true fact. Why? Something to think about. Later.
Don’t name them. But, think about ten people that you know over 65 (“over the hill”).
Now, think about ten people between 18-35. (“dumb as a rock”). Both groups know who they are. Consider how these groups are treated differently. For the young minimum formal education is from the age of 5 to 17. Enlistment in
military is from 17 to 35. At 35 you are eligible for a run at the presidency. As the underage group you are subjected to rules but have limited input. At 18 you get to vote,
serve your country, drink at 21. My point is responsibility comes before rights. Do you know anyone young who thinks this is as it should be? I would go so far as to say they
were lying if they said so. By 18 young people are driving, working, some have families. Half the population, the
median age was 35 in 2000, is excluded or has limited participation. It is necessary you say. Look at the college campuses, young people are in the streets protesting. The nerve!
I mean what have they ever done? Would they protest if they knew about Kent State?
I wish to praise the members of the Congress for supporting the constitution. In particular, 35 is the age at which you can be president. It’s a law. Goggle it. Check it out.
Ask anybody a question and thirty seconds later their phone will tell you the answer. Why bother with public education? I digress.
Congress has been controlled by either democrats or republicans for the last fifty-five years, maybe longer. Both parties continue to support age discrimination in the United
States. Neither party has offered to remove or reduce this minimum age requirement.
This is blatant age discrimination? Do you really have to be over seventy to be seriously considered as candidate for president? Being old is a bonus if you are in politics.
The remedy requires an amendment to the constitution. In a country split 50/50 on most issues, 21% block could swing the election. **Oh! This favors the status quo, maybe we
should just leave things alone. “ Do we want a democracy that’s narrow and specifically tailored to benefit the people who already have power and privilege, or do we want a democracy that legitimate includes everyone?” T.R. Edwards One way would be to eliminate this restriction. If you can vote, you can run (simple) Period. Or, we could impose an equal 21% (age 18-35 21 % of the population) restriction upon the upper end of the population. The upper limit would start somewhere between 60-65.
That’s fair.

If you are too young (irresponsible), then at some point you become too old (senile). It would be political suicide to suggest that elderly couldn’t vote. The elderly vote in mass numbers unlike their younger counterpart.
The young should think about this: the youngest elected president was assassinated.
Just saying, be careful what you ask for. That is why our representatives have never removed age requirements. They are doing it for you, the youth of America. Thank you,
members of Congress.