June 1, 2012 | 4 comments
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
December 13, 2010 | 10 comments
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
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?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?