President of the US is probably one of the most stressful jobs in the world and can literally make life or death decisions for hundreds of millions of people (indirectly for billions of people). Yet the only requirements are over 35 and natural born US citizen. In light of Trump, is that enough? Other professions which have life or death over people’s lives have mandatory retirement ages and of course mandatory qualifications. Eg Airline pilots must retire at 65, Air Traffic Controllers at 57. US Military flag and general officers must retire at 64 or with special permission from the President of Secretary of State at 68 maximum.
I fail to see why POTUS (And heads of state of other countries) should not have similar requirements. There is an indisputable link between aging and decline of cognitive function, the only factor is in some individuals its faster than others.
My personal opinion is that POTUS eligibility should be minimum 8 years in senate, congress, mayor or governor, or general officer or higher in armed services. And 60 should be the max age to start your term , so if you do two terms you retire at 68. And yes I’m aware that by this requirement Trump, Clinton and Sanders would all have been disqualified. My response to that is “good”.
Telling the voters that they can’t elect the person they want because he’s too old or not “experienced” enough doesn’t sound all that democratic to me.
Considering a person has to go through an eighteen month job application where their potential strengths and weaknesses are reviewed by millions of people, I don’t see how we can say the process isn’t rigorous enough.
The US is not a mob rule direct democracy. People also can’t vote by a 51% percent margin to over turn items in the constitution. There’s all sorts of checks, balances and rules that temper mob rule democracy. So by your argument a person under 35 should also be able to run?
We’ve already seen how the current system is prone to being taken over by a demogogue with no political experience. I see it as helping to preserve democracy long term to change the rules to prevent that, there is no doubt in my mind that if Trump did get elected it would be a genuine danger to democracy in the US.
Trump’s not going to get elected. I see no reason to rewrite the Constitution over a hypothetical, let alone in a way that would have prohibited Eisenhower and Truman from holding office.
Funny how the solution of many “liberals” to the Trump phenomenon isn’t a proactive solution to win over the American people to a bolder, progressive vision but a purely defensive instinct to restrict democracy by using reactionary language about “mob rule” and the “US is a republic not a democracy”. And yes, the age restriction on the Presidency (along with it forbidding those aren’t "natural-born citizens) is garbage.
So it’s up to the American People to prove we deserve our country. By turning out this November & defeating Trump soundly. I mean,* really *soundly.
His age & lack of experience aren’t the major problems–the problems are the mental & moral shortcomings evident every time he opens his mouth. Those rules would have barred some fairly good presidents.
While the notion that “anyone” can become President isn’t literally true, it’s cool that *most *Americans actually could have a theoretical shot at it. If Americans would like to display this freedom to the world by electing a turdbucket, then we get what we deserve. If such requirements as OP suggests are really intended to offset the stupidity of the American voter, then I suggest the stupidity of the American voter should be the focus of attention.
Just from a quick and dirty search, these are the presidents who this rule would have allowed:
Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, William McKinley, James A. Garfield, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James K. Polk, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, James Madison, and George Washington.
I’m not sure that is, overall, a better-than-average grouping. Some of them are quite highly-rated but a few are usually viewed as having been big steaming turds. In fact, based on the aggregate column on Wikipedia’s list of presidential rankings, it seems that’s quite an average group.
First quartile: George Washington, James K. Polk, John F. Kennedy
Second quartile: Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, William McKinley, James Madison
Third quartile: James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren
Fourth quartile: Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler
Obama was a state senator for seven years then the illinois senator for four years. I meant to count such mixed experience and state senators or congress members in the criteria and lets also say that any cabinet position also counts and the 8 years can be made up of any combination of one of the acceptable positions. Heck lets say years as a Judge (state or federal or supreme) also counts. I may have missed some similar positions but that’ll do for now.
That would allow a whole lot more previous presidents. If you relax the age requirement slightly to 62 (so 70 at retirement) at Inauguration then only five previous Presidents fail on age alone:
If you’re going to count state legislative service, it’s a pretty pointless rule. Many states have legislatures that only sit for two months every two years. Eight years in office could mean not much more than a year of actual experience. The idea that Mitt Romney was unqualified but Billy Bob Nobody who sat in the unpaid, part-time New Hampshire legislature for twice as long is qualified is pretty weird.
I don’t think resumes mean much. Consider this guy: military experience, served in state legislature, five terms in US House, ambassador to Russia, 10 years in US Senate, Secretary of State, ambassador to the UK. Sounds ideal, right? It’s James Buchanan.
Normally, the long primary and general election campaigns are pretty effective in screening the candidates. This year, for the first time ever, one of the finalists is a mentally unstable buffoon. One who is virtually assured of getting over 150 electoral votes. I’d be fine if the parties decided that in order to run, you needed a certain mix of experience. But I don’t see the need to make an amendment for it. If we get one more demagogue as nominee, then it’s time.
There would need to be a Constitutional amendment to impose new requirements to be elected President. Right now, all you have to be is a natural citizen, over 35, and resident in the US for fourteen years.
Plus, does the political experience have to be full time? I can think of a President who had less than three years of full time political experience, and no years of full time at anything else.
It might be better to let the voters decide what experience is relevant, and how old is too old. People are living longer than they did in the eighteenth or nineteenth century.
It seems to me an obvious broadside at Obama, yet he was US Senator from 2005-2008, so it was not less than three years. Or is there another target you were aiming at?
No, we shouldn’t impose additional requirements on the office of the President. Particularly not ham-handed ones like this. Not all political experience is equal, nor are all 60-year-olds.
Yes, inexperience and advanced age are negatives in a President, but in any given individual, they might be balanced by other, more important, positive qualities.