Should US Presidents have an age limit?

[Lamb]

Should US Presidents have an age limit? We have a retirement age for most workers but not the President. Should that be changed?

 

[Andrew]

Biden is the oldest president to be elected and it shows.

What's retirement at now? 65 right? Seems kind of young for someone who doesn't do any manual labor and has lived a comfortable life..maybe a cognitive test would be something to consider.. Biden had brain surgery if I'm not mistaken.

If I had to choose, I would say 80.

 

[Lamb]

Biden is the oldest president to be elected and it shows.

What's retirement at now? 65 right? Seems kind of young for someone who doesn't do any manual labor and has lived a comfortable life..maybe a cognitive test would be something to consider.. Biden had brain surgery if I'm not mistaken.

If I had to choose, I would say 80.

Full retirement depends on what year you were born since it's been increased. In order to receive full retirement benefits, someone of your age needs to wait until the age of 67.

There is a reason that the term "senior moment" exists and being a US President is one of the most stressful jobs even though the labor is not extensive. Look at photographs of past Presidents from the beginning and end of their terms. It takes a toll on a person.

The age I would like to see as a cut off is age 70 for being elected which means at age 74 he is retired from being President.

As much as I would love to see cognitive tests, I don't trust the government to perform them.

 

[Josiah]

No.

Americans SHOULD be able to vote for whomever they hold is the better candidate. I'm not happy with the (silly) "native born citizen" requirement or the term LIMIT requirement - both limits on democracy. But I don't want to add yet another limitation on it.



.

 

[Albion]

No, That would unnecessarily infringe upon the right of the voters to elect the candidate they judge to be the best.

By "unnecessarily" I mean that the presumption is that age determines competence, but as we know it does not. Some candidates would be suffering age-related diseases or limitations at 65 while others would not be so afflicted at 80.

 

[Lamb]

No, That would unnecessarily infringe upon the right of the voters to elect the candidate they judge to be the best.

By "unnecessarily" I mean that the presumption is that age determines competence, but as we know it does not. Some candidates would be suffering age-related diseases or limitations at 65 while others would not be so afflicted at 80.

We already infringe upon the rights of voters by having a minimal age of 35 requirement.

 

[Castle Church]

We have a retirement age, as in when you can start taking retirement benefits - but it is not a mandated requirement to stop working. Many people work well past the "retirement" age.

As for presidents, and Federal legislators in general, yes I think 80 is a reasonable age.

 

[tango]

No.

Americans SHOULD be able to vote for whomever they hold is the better candidate. I'm not happy with the (silly) "native born citizen" requirement or the term LIMIT requirement - both limits on democracy. But I don't want to add yet another limitation on it.

I agree that the native born citizen requirement is silly. If anything I think term limits should be expanded so that we don't end up with career politicians - I'm not sure how democracy is aided by allowing a career politician on either side to become so entrenched it's all but unthinkable to pass the baton to someone else.

As for age, if I recall you have to be 35 to run for the presidency, presumably because someone once figured that anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't have the experience required to do the job. It doesn't seem so unreasonable to figure that over a certain age you're probably too old to be fully up to the job.

It's hard to pick a number although maybe 75 would be a good choice. Sure, there are probably people over the age of 75 who could serve four years and be effective but maybe a country of 330,000,000 people can find some other candidates.

 

[Josiah]

I agree that the native born citizen requirement is silly. If anything I think term limits should be expanded so that we don't end up with career politicians - I'm not sure how democracy is aided by allowing a career politician on either side to become so entrenched it's all but unthinkable to pass the baton to someone else.

As for age, if I recall you have to be 35 to run for the presidency, presumably because someone once figured that anyone younger than 35 probably doesn't have the experience required to do the job. It doesn't seem so unreasonable to figure that over a certain age you're probably too old to be fully up to the job.

It's hard to pick a number although maybe 75 would be a good choice. Sure, there are probably people over the age of 75 who could serve four years and be effective but maybe a country of 330,000,000 people can find some other candidates.

Understood... appreciated....

I just feel that VOTER'S should be able to decide which is the best candidate. It may be that a 34 year old candidate is better than a 36 year old one (maybe even an 80 year old one). AND, in my view, it's possible that a candidate that has been in that same office for 8 years is better than one who had been in some other office for 8 years and now has to run for some other office ("termed out"), one perhaps he/she is not very qualified. I'd rather let the voter's decide... than some law limiting such decisions. But that's me.

I 'get' the "career politician" point. But what we see under term limits generally is that the SAME PERSON just switches offices. They run for some other political position (not so for presidents, I realize). We see this in The People's Republic of California so often that it's expected: a person who is "termed out" as say a state Assemblymen is just presumed to then run for State Senate, and so on. "Term Limits" often just means "musical chairs."


.

 

[Albion]

We already infringe upon the rights of voters by having a minimal age of 35 requirement.

Yes, but there is a reasonable reservation about anyone becoming President without being mature. Whether or not 35 is the right age for determining such competency is open to question and the Constitution can of course be amended. However, this doesn't give us an answer to the proposition about adding a new limitation on the voters' choice of candidate when it concerns an upper age.

It's hard to pick a number although maybe 75 would be a good choice. Sure, there are probably people over the age of 75 who could serve four years and be effective but maybe a country of 330,000,000 people can find some other candidates.

and, in so saying, the argument for an upper age limit fails.

And, by the way also, if there is a concern about a 75 year old becoming incompetent during his term in office, the Constitution already provides a remedy for that eventuality, so that's one more reason to oppose any such age limit.

 

[Albion]

Should US Presidents have an age limit? We have a retirement age for most workers...

DO we? I don't think so.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Nobody should be forced to retire. If someone is 100, competent, and wants to keep working, so be it.

 

[tango]

Understood... appreciated....

I just feel that VOTER'S should be able to decide which is the best candidate. It may be that a 34 year old candidate is better than a 36 year old one (maybe even an 80 year old one). AND, in my view, it's possible that a candidate that has been in that same office for 8 years is better than one who had been in some other office for 8 years and now has to run for some other office ("termed out"), one perhaps he/she is not very qualified. I'd rather let the voter's decide... than some law limiting such decisions. But that's me.

I 'get' the "career politician" point. But what we see under term limits generally is that the SAME PERSON just switches offices. They run for some other political position (not so for presidents, I realize). We see this in The People's Republic of California so often that it's expected: a person who is "termed out" as say a state Assemblymen is just presumed to then run for State Senate, and so on. "Term Limits" often just means "musical chairs."

You make many good points here, Josiah. Ordinarily I would be inclined to agree with you on many counts, maybe all counts. The trouble is when we have a country that is as starkly divided as this one, where the most vocal (i.e. extreme) fringes of both main parties have a disproportionate influence on the earliest stages of the process and where a concerning number of voters are purely tribal (I'm talking the kind of people who would vote for a turnip if it had the correct color rosette on it), it's easier to make a case to limit just how off-beat a candidate can be before being disqualified.

A friend of mine has often said we already have term limits but we call them "elections". Which is true enough, except when parties put the same candidates up time and time and time again it would take an enormous level of annoyance for people to cross the aisle and vote for the other party just as a means of getting rid of a candidate who wasn't willing to stand down and move on. Can you imagine many people in the liberal parts of California deciding it was time for someone like Dianne Feinstein to stand down and make way for someone else and being sufficiently determined to make their case that they would vote for a Republican to force the issue?

The "musical chairs" situation you describe is really just another part of the same problem. It does seem silly to say you can't stand for the state assembly any more but you can move to the state senate, then stand for governor, then stand for federal office and basically work your way up until either people are sick of the sight of you (which virtually never seems to happen these days), or you do something to disgrace yourself, or you finally retire or die.

I guess a key part of the equation is taking power away from governments at all levels. If working in a government office is a service to the people rather than to self it seems people wouldn't particularly want to spend their entire lives doing it.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

A root problem is that the government is at least 10 times bigger than it should be and is involved in many things it has no business being involved in per the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Josiah]

I guess a key part of the equation is taking power away from governments at all levels. If working in a government office is a service to the people rather than to self it seems people wouldn't particularly want to spend their entire lives doing it.

.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."--Thomas Jefferson

 

[tango]

and, in so saying, the argument for an upper age limit fails.

And, by the way also, if there is a concern about a 75 year old becoming incompetent during his term in office, the Constitution already provides a remedy for that eventuality, so that's one more reason to oppose any such age limit.

Except we could use the same argument to abolish the age limits for drinking, smoking, driving, getting married etc. We should get rid of speed limits, drink-drive limits and so on.

 

[Albion]

Except we could use the same argument to abolish the age limits for drinking, smoking, driving, getting married etc. We should get rid of speed limits, drink-drive limits and so on.

?? I guess I miss how these are supposed to be parallel to the issue we were discussing.

 

[tango]

?? I guess I miss how these are supposed to be parallel to the issue we were discussing.

Your comment was that my acknowledgement that some people can be perfectly functional over the age of 80 is a strike against having an upper age limit.

By the same argument most countries around the world consider people responsible to drink at 18 or younger, yet the US insists upon 21. Some people are responsible enough to have a beer or two and stop at a young age while others will drink to oblivion even at an older age. Many people can drive safely at speeds higher than the posted speed limits, or with more alcohol in their blood than the legal limit and so on. So by your argument we should do away with lower age limits, speed limits, drink-drive limits and the like.

Or we can accept that even though some may be able to function in a certain situation a large enough percentage of the population cannot that we introduce a limit based on the majority with the understanding it imposes a needlessly harsh limit on some.

 

[Albion]

Your comment was that my acknowledgement that some people can be perfectly functional over the age of 80 is a strike against having an upper age limit.

By the same argument most countries around the world consider people responsible to drink at 18 or younger, yet the US insists upon 21.

Yes, but my comment was about persons of advanced age. Your comment here is about people at the other end of life. Therefore, the two are not part of the same situation.

Some people are responsible enough to have a beer or two and stop at a young age while others will drink to oblivion even at an older age. Many people can drive safely at speeds higher than the posted speed limits, or with more alcohol in their blood than the legal limit and so on. So by your argument we should do away with lower age limits, speed limits, drink-drive limits and the like.

That's a different argument with different considerations. It may be worth discussing, but it isn't part of what I was speaking to.