It seems crazy to me that the words of men from the 1700's are supposed to be so perfect, so irrefutable, that men and women from 2023 cannot modify them to suit the times that we live in.

We don't believe that their words are perfect or irrefutable. The Constitution can be modified, and has been modified on numerous occasions.

What's at issue here isn't whether what they wrote in the Constitution is good (much less perfect), but rather the shared agreement that what's in the Constitution is the law until it is changed. No one argues that the absolute perfect minimum age for a Presidential candidate is 35 years old - it might be 30, or 40, or 25 - but we all agree to abide by what the Constitution says is the minimum age unless it is amended.**




**Well, most "all" of us agree. There are Constitutional scholars who might take a contrary position, or who rather might dispute what "amend" means in the context of the Constitution. Looking at you, Bruce Ackerman.