U.S. Rep. Phil English has good intentions in proposing that the U.S. Constitution be changed to allow for younger members in the Senate and House of Representatives. The 3rd District Republican introduced a resolution last month calling for a constitutional amendment to allow would-be candidates age 21 and older to run for both houses of the legislature.

However, the proposal is dubious from the standpoint of life experiences and the level of overall knowledge and maturity that federal service at such a level should entail.

That is not to imply that plenty of bad judgment and ideas don't surface on the part of legislators two or three times older than English's proposed minimum age. However, the politicking and posturing that many of those bad proposals represent is different from the overall scope of responsibility and broad-ranging knowledge that effective legislative service requires.

The framers of the Constitution displayed recognition of such thinking when they stipulated in Article 1 that "no person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States," and "no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States."

The provisions have remained unchanged and effective since 1789, when the Constitution's seven original articles were adopted, and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be worthy of keeping 215 years hence.

"The age limits on serving in Congress are a dead letter left over from a different time," English said. He's entitled to that opinion.

But there are more important problems and issues facing this country and his district, to which English ought to be devoting his utmost attention, rather than proposing changes to original provisions of this nation's most important document that time hasn't conclusively proven to be in error.

English's constituents would appreciate much more if the congressman directed his efforts toward bringing home an important federal benefit or project to his district, rather than focusing on such a "distant" endeavor.

"Young citizens who can vote, pay taxes and fight and die in the military should have equal access to positions of decision-making in our country," English said. But extending that line of English thinking means that maybe the nation's executive branch should be thrown open to those 21 and above also, rather than requiring in the Constitution's Article II that a president be 35 years old.

"Age is an artificial criterion in choosing representatives, and there is no reasonable basis for denying young voters the opportunity to running for federal office," English said.

There might be a few instances where a young representative - the kind English envisions - could have a positive impact. However, for the most part, that would not be the case.

In practically all instances, a wider array of life experiences and understanding would prove more productive on a national legislative scale later on after having avoided the frustrations and intimidation that someone as young as English envisions could encounter.

The Constitution is fine. English shouldn't challenge the vision and understanding contained in its words - provisions with which voters have felt comfortable for more than two centuries..

- J.R.K.