President's minimum age

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

When does a presidential candidate need to be 35 years old to become president?

• At the point of nomination?
• On Election Day?
• On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December?
• On Inauguration Day?

Further question: Does the time of birth also matter?

[Vega]

Inauguration.

No. Time of birth doesn't matter for anything.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Inauguration.

No. Time of birth doesn't matter for anything.

👍🏻

[NewYorkExpress]

I think it's when the electors vote, but if I were trying to fix the system, I'd rewrite it, so that it's pegged to the time a candidate files papers to run for President.

Obviously, with the minimum age of thirty for Senate and twenty-five for House, it makes sense to me to it that way as well.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Inauguration.

No. Time of birth doesn't matter for anything.

I think it's when the electors vote, but if I were trying to fix the system, I'd rewrite it, so that it's pegged to the time a candidate files papers to run for President.

Okay, two people - two different opinions. Now it's getting interesting... 🤔

[Slander and/or Libel]

So if the time doesn't matter, then when is a person officially 35 years old? Is it the midnight beginning the day of their birthday, or the midnight beginning the next day?

[hurricanehink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on the wording of Article Two, Section One, the key word is “eligible to that office.” As the president-elect doesn’t become President until Inauguration Day, I would guess that’s the right answer. The Electoral College would still vote for this 34 year old, knowing he/she would turn 35 and thus be eligible by Inauguration Day.

[J. J.]

There are some precedents in the US House. Occasionally,especially in the early 20th Century, people were elected that either not met the age requirement or the 7 year citizenship requirement, but would soon into their terms.  In those cases, the seat was held open and the person was seated when they met that requirement.

I will hold that out as a possibilty.

In terms of age, you are considered to have reached the age  on the day before your birthday (you will see this in some places where you buy alcohol or tobacco).  It is a matter of common law. 

If someone was born on January 21st, and would be elected at 34 in the previous November, he could be sworn in as President on January 20th. 

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

So if the time doesn't matter, then when is a person officially 35 years old? Is it the midnight beginning the day of their birthday, or the midnight beginning the next day?

Things are getting even more complicated if you include the different time zones.
Is a presidential candidate who is turning 35 on the qualifying date under Hawaiian time already considered 35 y.o. in Washington D.C.?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Two cases from the Senate seem on point.  Joe Biden was 29 when elected in 1972, but was 30 by the time his term began. Rush Holt Sr. was 29 when elected in 1934 and was still 29 when his term began and did not take office until after his 30th birthday.  There may be some cases in the House as well, but I'd say those are enough to say that what matters is what age the President-elect is when taking the oath of office. As for exactly what day one reaches age 35, one will find both the common-law definition of the day before the 35th anniversary of birth and the now common statutory definition of the 35th anniversary itself used in Federal laws and regulations.  For this purpose, I would say the common law definition prevails unless there is statutory law addressing it.

As for the time zone issue, I'd say it's settled on when you're born.  Both me and my stepdaughter were born in the wee hours in the Eastern Time Zone.  Our birthdays would not suddenly become a day earlier if we moved to California.  There's no age-related issue under the law that I'm aware of where the exact minute is taken note of. (Indeed, the potential uncertainty for those such as us is likely why the common law tradition of having one's legal age go up the day before the anniversary of one's birth exists to begin with.)

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Two cases from the Senate seem on point.  Joe Biden was 29 when elected in 1972, but was 30 by the time his term began. Rush Holt Sr. was 29 when elected in 1934 and was still 29 when his term began and did not take office until after his 30th birthday.  There may be some cases in the House as well, but I'd say those are enough to say that what matters is what age the President-elect is when taking the oath of office. As for exactly what day one reaches age 35, one will find both the common-law definition of the day before the 35th anniversary of birth and the now common statutory definition of the 35th anniversary itself used in Federal laws and regulations.  For this purpose, I would say the common law definition prevails unless there is statutory law addressing it.

That means in case of an under 35-year-old president-elect, the vice president will act as president until the actual president turn 35?

As for the time zone issue, I'd say it's settled on when you're born.  Both me and my stepdaughter were born in the wee hours in the Eastern Time Zone.  Our birthdays would not suddenly become a day earlier if we moved to California.  There's no age-related issue under the law that I'm aware of where the exact minute is taken note of. (Indeed, the potential uncertainty for those such as us is likely why the common law tradition of having one's legal age go up the day before the anniversary of one's birth exists to begin with.)

That's actually a complicated problem that I have never given thought to, since we don't have the problem of time zone changes in Europe.
So, if someone is born in California late at night, but lives in New York, they have a disadvantage when it come to reaching the age of majority or suffrage?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Three Senators, including Henry Clay actually served in office before turning 30 (the last in 1818).  I've sometimes wondered in you could make a constitutional challenge against bills passed that one of them voted for.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Three Senators, including Henry Clay actually served in office before turning 30 (the last in 1818).  I've sometimes wondered in you could make a constitutional challenge against bills passed that one of them voted for.

Probably not. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". While in hindsight, Congress made errors in enforcing thr qualifications in the 19th century, that wouldn't make the the laws they passed invalid.

[brucejoel99]

Three Senators, including Henry Clay actually served in office before turning 30 (the last in 1818).  I've sometimes wondered in you could make a constitutional challenge against bills passed that one of them voted for.

Probably not. "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". While in hindsight, Congress made errors in enforcing thr qualifications in the 19th century, that wouldn't make the the laws they passed invalid.

Indeed, the de facto officer doctrine likely also applies here too, which confers validity upon acts performed by a person (such as Henry Clay) presumed to be validly acting under the color of official title even though it's later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or (in this case) election to office is deficient.

[President Johnson]

Three Senators, including Henry Clay actually served in office before turning 30 (the last in 1818).  I've sometimes wondered in you could make a constitutional challenge against bills passed that one of them voted for.

Interesting question. I always asked myself whether a president's or governor's executive actions would remain intact if he or she is found to be ineligible after serving.

[brucejoel99]

Three Senators, including Henry Clay actually served in office before turning 30 (the last in 1818).  I've sometimes wondered in you could make a constitutional challenge against bills passed that one of them voted for.

Interesting question. I always asked myself whether a president's or governor's executive actions would remain intact if he or she is found to be ineligible after serving.

See my above post re: the de facto officer doctrine