You know how the Constitution says that you have to be at least twenty-five to be a Representative, thirty to be a Senator, and thirty-five to be President? Well, why in the world did the Founding Fathers feel the need to put that in there? Were they really worried that America was going to elect a twelve-year-old as their leader otherwise?
Stupid Founding Fathers. I guess I’m still just mad at them for not thinking out the Supreme Court better.
hahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahe
hahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahaha
hehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehaha
hahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahahahehahaha
They found a loophole–He may be physically old, but Obama has the mind of a 12 year old.
It was the only way the Kennedys could guarantee their offspring that they could rape and pillage in the halls of the Ivy Leagues before they began ruling over us serfs.
Don’t hassle the Founding Fathers, boy. They have eerie powers.
They shoulda put in some rules regarding the removal of dottering, senile windbags.
I would have added incompetent to the list, but we’d never be able to elect anyone.
Then again, that might be such a bad thing…
well, the need for term limits never came up because no one in their right minds at the time would have considered making politics a career.
now we need term limits, but too many people fall for the line that “if the founding fathers didn’t put that in the Constitution, we don’t need it.”
Folks, the founding fathers were not gods or supermen. They were a bunch of people with very different regional needs and idea who came together to hammer out a system of government not to be perfect, but to be the uniformly least flawed so every different faction would grudgingly accept it. They did, at least, have the foresight to recognize that it wasn’t perfect, otherwise, there never would have been an amendment process built it.
So let’s amend it and put in some reasonable term limits. We have them for President now, why not every other elected office? And maybe unelected judges, too.
But I would go a different route than term limits, I think. I would go with mandatory retirement at age 62. If that works for the military, it should work for all members of government. And then they should have no pension other than social security.
Folks, the founding fathers were not gods or supermen.
If that is true, then explain why I sacrifice a goat to them every 4th of July! You can’t can you? Therefore, they must be gods.
25 – 30 – 35. What’s the problem with that? It implies: Age = Wisdom. Hardly democratic, or representative, but clearly wise.
Question: Does “democracy” suck when the majority of people are stupid? There’s no prevention in there for that! Maybe our founding fathers (notice no mothers) thought: Stupid Democracy = Failure. In which case, we’re in deep trouble.
Hell, I don’t think you should be allowed to VOTE until you’re 30, or have at least lived on your own for ten consecutive years. College and Mom’s basement don’t count.
It’s a darn good thing 12 year olds can’t run for office, or our elections would be even more like junior high school elections than they already are. Our candidates would be making posters with glitter glue. Glitter glue, for heaven’s sake! And the number 4 for the word “for”!
The Founding Fathers weren’t specific enough and assumed people would understand: They meant IQ, not age. So, technically, most Democrats are not legally elected.
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 12…a Senator…
What do you call a lawyer gone bad? A member of the House of Representatives…
Our founding fathers were wise, intelligent, visionary, men with integrity.
Ben Franklin told us: “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
And even more germane :
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
He even has words for the “loyal opposition”:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
I wish Ben were here now : (
Sean, I believe the line was, “those who would give up Essential liberty for Temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. “. I think it is oft misquoted, even by the well informed/intentioned.