New Constitutional Amendment

No, but I also think it's insane our country is ran by a bunch of 70 year olds. You wouldn't hire a 70 year old for almost any other job, but somehow they are all qualified for high level politics.

 

I’d support it. I’d also support an amendment that eliminates voting for people over 70 for much the same reason we don’t allow children to vote.

 

I would qualify your above and say anyone over 70 who can't get to a polling station. That would eliminate much of the drop box controversy. It would also allow me to keep voting for another couple of years

 

Does it include prohibiting those over 70 from voting? Or from taking legislative or judicial action impacting who is selected as President?

 

No, it’s as discriminatory as saying an Asian can’t be President.

I will say I think a requirement to run for office should be at least a college degree and serve at least one term in the Senate. Trump showed us that you really need to know how government works.

 

I wouldn’t want anyone over age 75 in the WH. So, 70 or 72 would seem an appropriate cutoff point. The problem isn’t so much mental acuity, though that has declined for almost everyone by age 75, as it is nimbleness of mind and energy/stamina.

BTW, i don’t think references to “democracy” are appropriate. The people have the right in a democracy to amend their constitution, and we’ve amended ours many times.

I’m 78 (and a half).

 

Certainly a question that deserves some contemplation but I would vote no on such an amendment.

There are but two requirements to be elected the President of the United States which are US citizenship by birth and a minimum age limit. I believe the founders had some intuition concerning the the correlation of age with intellect and hopefully wisdom yet they sought no further restrictions concerning mental or physical health.

Concerning an upper limitation on age I doubt the founders ever considered advancements in medicine would increase ones life expectancy range to that of today. The quality of life concerning medical advancement and technology has certainly increased the life span of that expected in the 1800's. I think it is safe to say the founders understood their own mortality and didn't see a need for such a requirement. They most likely envisioned the ages of future generations rising to the level of governance in short order and settled on an age that would at a minimum guarantee stability in the Federal government.

That is not to say the people don't have a right to makes such a change as was done concerning term limits and the office of President. Two terms would limit a President's to age 43 assuming taking office at 35 and serving consecutive terms. Grover Cleveland is the only President to have served two non-consecutive terms (at age 48 1885-1889 and at age 56 1893-1897)

I have to note the founders sought minimum ages for the house and senate as well feeling secure in their beliefs we would not have career politicians. One also has to consider it is the career politicians who groom and select candidates of choice for the population to choose from. Whether or not these career politicians need an upper age limit or term requirements is certainly debatable. One could argue the point they wish to wield power within the realm of their peers. Don't rock the boat so to speak.

Given the current state of affairs when left with the choice of septuagenarians and octogenarians what is the public to do?

If the answer is to put upper age limits on elected officials the question becomes what age and what evidence (medical, physical, genetics) could be provided to support such a change? A difficult question that needs to be addressed to which I have no answer. What is clear is the political field is not ceding to younger generations without a fight. This may well lead to centenarian rule in the halls of government where future septuagenarians and octogenarians take their place.

My hope is given a field of candidates that is yet to be determined for 2024 the public will have seen enough of the folly of their previous decisions.

 

No


I want to be president one day. I’m 69.

 

Doesn’t a democracy allow the people to amend the Constitution to put an age limit on presidents holding office?

 

Let’s amend the constitution to where it cannot be amended.

 

Life expectancy for men in the US is ~75, where women is 81ish.

Retirement age is ~67.

I think there should be an upper limit.

 

How is that discriminatory but saying you need a college degree is not?

 

There are some jobs that have a maximal age requirement out of safety concerns like cop or firefighter, but this isn’t wide spread. Government jobs that aren’t elected have a maximum retirement age of 65.

A lot of jobs have a minimal education requirement so it’s not discriminatory.

 

If we’re going to spend the effort on an amendment, then that amendment needs to be for Congressional term limits. That would solve many of your geriatric issues as well, since people don’t generally join Congress old; they grow old and comfortable there. While we’re at it, I would amend the terms of Supreme Court justices to a single 20-year term versus “life.” Twenty years is a good long while, the finite term gives the President a predictable period to nominate a successor, and will also reduce some of the age and infirmity issues we’ve seen.

 

How about we vote each election and primary as to whether the candidate is too old or dumb to be President?

 

On that point I would agree. If we are going to down this road then we need to address all of the issues we see inherent in our career politicians.

Maximum age limits are a different story. What should the maximum age limit be and based on scientific criteria. (genetics, health, etc...). The reason I am opposed to such a solution is such an amendment leads to a potential change as medical science evolves.

 

The last two elections have proven that doesn't work. We got geriatric Biden and Trump.

 

I think Trump showed us that there are people out there who aren't career politicians CAN run this country.

Trumps problem was his ego, his mouth and his twitter account.

 

Describe too old and too dumb.

A picture of Trump or Biden will not suffice even if true.