That is not true.
You probably also think you have to be a licensed attorney to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
I do not think that you have to be an attorney to be supreme court justice, but thanks for assuming.
Before you mock someone else, get your ducks in a row.
Of course you have to be a member of the House to be Speaker.
But, good luck with that challenge constitutionally.
You won’t have precedent nor founders’ intent on your side.
And, outside the Constitution, those are two of the highest tenants when determining constitutionality.
And besides the words of the founders themselves, common sense must prevail.
Why do you think the founders didn’t list qualifications for the Speaker of the House specifically? Because they were already listed under the qualifications for MEMBERS. It’s not rocket science. Do you really think the founders were cool with the House of Reps putting, say, a 17 year old non citizen as speaker of the House? Because that’s exactly what your point implies. And if you DO think that, then do you really think that the qualifications for Representatives were important enough to list in the constitution, but their leader, who holds MUCH power, was so important that the founders didn’t bother with qualifications?