-
Millionaire Rapper, Meet Billionaire Boone
June 1, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Re: Regrets Over Could-Have-Been GOP Contenders
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
-
The Paul Ryan Primer
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
-
Tim Pawlenty: Govt Unions Are a Silent Coup
December 13, 2010 | 10 comments
-
Re: Fey Still Isn’t Funny
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On Fox & Friends this morning, Ron Meyer, a young freelance writer, argued there should be an amendment to the Constitution changing the age limit for a person able to elected to Congress from 25 to 18 years old. He says if a person can volunteer to fight and possibly die for his country and 18, he should be able to have a voice—and a legitimate seat—to represent as well.
As I wrote recently, with more young people aware of what Twitter is than who sits on the Supreme Court, the generation he’s referring to is notoriously and unfortunately ignorant about political happenings in this country. Meyer believes if young people were allowed to represent their district in Congress, they might be more involved.
As a young person myself, I’m torn on this (though, obviously it’s a theoretical dichotomy—an amendment to the Constitution is a feat). I can see Meyer’s point about the military, but enlisting out of college or going to a military academy at 18 is much different than representing the voice of the people in Congress. I would question the knowledge, maturity, perception and foresight of an 18-year-old trying to putting up a bill on “my” behalf, in addition to the myriad of responsibilities that accompany such a position.
I wish more young people cared—and were involved in—politics too. But few, if any statistics, show 25-year-olds care about political matters and they do have a voice. Why would someone seven years younger care more if he did a voice?
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Nicole Russell
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/27/congress-at-18
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
win| 8.27.10 @ 7:52AM
Eighteen year olds for Congress would probably not be a good idea. Think about it, to many young adults at that age attending college, maybe living at home still, often not paying their own way in life. They should get an interest in government and politics before they run for Congress.
Eric Cartman| 8.27.10 @ 9:21AM
25-Years old to be a Congresswhore? That's outrageous! You want to do 18-year olds a favor? Raise the age to 35.
L.E. Powers| 8.27.10 @ 9:33AM
I commend Mr. Meyer's sincerity. I know many intelligent, involved individuals at his age also thought that young people should have more rights and privileges -- it is one of the reasons that the voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th amendment in 1971.
However, there is a difference between having suffrage and having the privilege of representing constituents in Congress. I commend Mr. Meyer's enthusiasm and desire to serve. Through the generations there have been many who thought they should have greater responsibility then allowed their station; but the wisdom of gaining some life experience before assuming great responsibility is still valid. I am not saying that there aren't individuals who could handle the job at 18, just that even those who could would benefit and perform even better when they reach 25
Tish | 8.27.10 @ 10:37AM
Bravely said. I tend to agree with you, but on the other hand, I'd rather entrust my fate to an 18 year old who fought in Iraq than to most of those "serving" in Congress today.
Taxpayer| 8.27.10 @ 11:41PM
The gap between minimum military age and Congressional minimum age seems logical on its face. However, an 18-year-old doesn't become a General or a Seal or a Green Beret the day after graduating boot camp. For the same reasons, an 18-year-old shouldn't become one of the elite group of 600+ leaders of the free world.
Odins Acolyte| 8.27.10 @ 11:54AM
A teen does not have the life experience or restraint
needed for such a position even if he had an IQ of 200. Not. A population that would elect such a child would need to be incarcerated for its own good. Most of the adults in congress do not have sufficient restraint.
Diego| 8.27.10 @ 12:52PM
Lowering the voting age to 18 was one of many bad ideas from the 1970s. The argument that if one is old enough to die for one's country one should have the right to vote was emotionally compelling at the time, but doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Very young men--eighteen to mid-twenties--have unique physical abilities that suit them to the rigors of combat. That doesn't mean they generally have the wisdom and maturity to make decisions about the direction of government. The 26th amendment was another intrusion on the power of the states to decide--as they should be able to--who is qualified to vote.
One of the many unfortunate side effects of the forced expansion of the franchise to 18-year-olds is that with burgeoning college populations many cities and counties have significant imported youth voting blocks. And many of those student voters are dependent on their parents and on government subsidies for their livelihood. In other words, a large group of net tax recipients with a voice in imposing new taxes.
Needless to say, people who have no business voting have even less business being in Congress.
Perfectection personified| 8.27.10 @ 2:15PM
Go back to the original meaning of the Constitution, like Tea Baggers advocate.
Only land owning white men, who Kipling properly described as beholding to "The White Man's Burden", should rule over the peons.
We know what is best for all concerned, so please you hoi polloi, shew away, or we shall imprison you to work on hog farms, or any other labor camp.
As our hero Adolph, whom we give a wink and nod to once said, "work makes you free".
More psilocybin in our Tea please.
Don H| 8.27.10 @ 2:48PM
Perfectection? Ha! Things like that happen when people think their perfectect.
Antonia| 8.27.10 @ 2:20PM
As has been said - younger men are suited to physical activities such as those required in a war. This does not mean that they are mature enough to be a representative. Just as an older man is no longer able to physically fight for his country, but does at this point (theoretically) have the sufficient knowledge of living life outside the home of his parents, working in the workforce, experiencing life as a normal, productive citizen who would then understand his fellow citizens and their experiences.
Mr. Sir| 8.27.10 @ 2:23PM
Younger men are better suited as pages for Mark Foley, and Larry Craig.
Perfection personified| 8.27.10 @ 2:21PM
See, slave owning should also come back, then i would not be bored with having to type, and spilling Tea, causing imperfection.
My slave could then be whipped, for allowing me, ME!, to have to hold my own teacup.
Back to the original Constitution!!!!!!!!
MikeN| 8.27.10 @ 3:42PM
How about lowering the drinking age to 18 for military members?
Tom Osterman| 8.27.10 @ 10:15PM
The younger the man, the less creepy the sex scandal.
I'm just saying.
Taxpayer| 8.27.10 @ 11:48PM
Lots of 18-to-25's voted for Obama. 'Nuff said.
elephant4life| 8.28.10 @ 9:35AM
The lunatics are already running the asylum. The last thing we need is to have some brat whose mindset comes from MTV and who thinks national elections should be handled like running for student council with voting like American Idol. Look how many 18- year-olds voted for that ahole currently in the WH, because he talked pretty, said all the nice multicultural things, and was really just a wolf in sheep's clothing. Civics is no longer being really taught in our schools; what new grads don't know about our government or the realities of life would fill volumes. In the 18th century, a 25-year old had already been exposed to and lived an adult's life for nearly a decade. Today, too many at that age are still just interested in partying and letting mommy and daddy take care of them. There are much more important changes to the Constitution that need to be made: term limits, reining in the judiciary, placing explicit limits on Presidential power, limitations on birthright citizenship, clarification of "natural-born", etc.
mike| 8.29.10 @ 2:55AM
Which igroupsave is the best? Fremont group buy is your best choice, have a try to learn about San Francisco group purchase, and you will have a big surprise about San Jose group buy.
mike| 8.29.10 @ 2:55AM
Which igroupsave is the best? Fremont group buy is your best choice, have a try to learn about San Francisco group purchase, and you will have a big surprise about San Jose group buy.
Tim Williams| 8.29.10 @ 12:03PM
How about handling the same way many states handle drinking ages: if you actually *are* serving in the Armed Forces, you can drink at 18. I get a little worn out by the 90+% of people who have never served asking for special consideration because they "could." There's no draft. You want to enlist, it's okay by me if you drink. And what the hell - go ahead and run for Congress once your hitch is done, however old you are.
Dai Alanye | 8.29.10 @ 3:25PM
Something like this came up during the Korean War. The argument then was that if you were old enough to serve you should be old enough to drink beer. This privilege was supposed to apply only to those in combat zones, as I recall.
Perhaps we should apply a modification of Heinlein's rule. In order to serve in Congress or as President a person should have served and been honorably discharged. I foresee enlistments soaring in the Coast Guard, Air Force and Navy. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)