Isn't it ageist discrimination? It's an outdated stipulation for potential candidates..the old excuse that they "don't have enough experience until they are 35" is arbitrary and non-sense. What if someone younger does have the experience? It was put into place well before discrimination laws were put into place and I don't see how or why this should still be a restriction on candidacy. The excuse that one doesn't have enough experience is used anyway against all candidates...shouldn't that be up to the voters to decide? I would think that a challenge to this may get overturned in the Supreme Court...and perhaps also the rule that you must be born in America to run. If you are an American citizen, then so what? Every candidate is going to be vetted and all the dirty laundry will be aired regardless so I really don't see why it is needed nor legal to have these laws in place.
I want to hear Higher Learning's thoughts on this. Certainly, I'd expect the major parties and candidates would smear a younger candidate to high heavens but I don't see why they shouldn't be given the chance to run, both on merits and because I don't find such laws to even be legal if challenged in court.
