She was born October 13th, 1989. That means she’ll be 35 by the time of the election in November, not to mention before the inauguration in January (the date that actually matters). So, she’s definitely eligible.
No he’s right actually, you just have to be 35 to be president, not to get elected president. If AOC were the nominee and she won, she would definitely be president!
Her birthday is in late October. She’ll barely be 35 by the point of the election in November, but she will still be 35. So, she’d be 35 both when elected, and when inaugurated. It’s a non-issue.
She was born October 13th, 1989. That means she’ll be 35 by the time of the election in November, not to mention before the inauguration in January (the date that actually matters). So, she’s definitely eligible.
Is there precedent to support this? I am genuinely interested.
Isn’t the precedent that time has never gone in reverse, and is unexpected to ever.
I was always under the impression that you had to be 35 to get on the ballot
No he’s right actually, you just have to be 35 to be president, not to get elected president. If AOC were the nominee and she won, she would definitely be president!
Her birthday is in late October. She’ll barely be 35 by the point of the election in November, but she will still be 35. So, she’d be 35 both when elected, and when inaugurated. It’s a non-issue.
The text of the constitution only mentions being 35 “to serve”. Nothing at all about that having to be true during the election.
But regardless: she’ll be 35 by the point of the election anyway so it’s a non-issue to begin with.