Assume for the sake of the argument that we can actually get a constitutional amendment passed.
I’ve never been much of a fan of hard age requirements for retirement–people differ so much in their abilities and health. What I would like to see is more of a tiered system based on age.
Tier 1: Under 65
No restrictions.
Tier 2: 65-74
Every time the politician announces a re-election bid, he must provide statements from 2 doctors certifying that he has no major health issues that would be likely to be a hindrance to serving effectively.
Tier 3: 75-79
Same as above, except that 1 of the doctors must be either (A) a voter registered in a different political party; or (B) from another state.
Tier 4: 80+
Every time the politician announces a re-election bid, he must provide statements from 3 doctors, 1 of which must be registered in a different party but in the politician’s home state, and 1 of which must be from another state.
Sounds like a good way to get a lot more of these;
This is a solution in search of a problem. The voters are adequately capable of deciding whether a politician is fit for the job without imposing arbitrary age limits and asking for notes.
You must not have actually read my proposal. Do you seriously think that a doctor who is a political liberal would have written such a letter for Trump?
I think your proposal fails to account for the fact that many states don’t require voters to register any party affiliation. In my state it’s not even possible to register a party preference - we have a top-two jungle primary where a voter can vote for any candidate and it’s up to the candidate to declare what party they “prefer”, and even allows them to state that they prefer parties that don’t even exist.
Essentially you’d be banning anyone in many states from running for reelection after they reach a certain age.
Because more people voted for them than the other guy and they have chosen not to resign.
As soon as other people are in the decision making process (the doctors) the potential for corruption is present. Additionally, you are now making doctors political gatekeepers. The Founding Fathers relied on the good character of people to do what is right. We have seen that almost never happen these days. Making one person the decision maker for who can run for office seems like an idea that will not turn out well.
I don’t accept the premise.
There’s significant value in having a representative who knows how to get things done, or how to find the staff who can get things done rather compared to a newbie pollie chock full of enthusiasm but whose efforts generate column inches or tweets rather than solid results.
Sooner or later everyone dies and a new politician will have to take a vacant seat. I don’t see why forcing (say) a mandatory retirement age changes much. So they vacate a seat five years sooner than they would have. Now the new politician is five years more experienced.
That is to say that I don’t see how turning doctors into gatekeepers of the ballot box would improve things. In a country of 350 million people I’m sure Donald Trump could find at least one doctor who votes Democrat to give him a once-over and say “Yeah, he looks healthy to me”.
The FAA doesn’t let people fly commercial airliners past 65 do they? Seems reasonable. What kind of drugs are these geriatrics on is another open question.
(Another howler, none of them are required to pass even rudimentary background investigations. The official stance is that merely by winning an election, they are “deemed” to have passed a background investigation)
I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison. A person’s reflexes and hand-eye coordination are naturally going to degrade with age, but we don’t elect politicians on the basis of their being able to catch a fastball or land a 747.
There are mandatory age minimums required to serve in Congress or run for President. Why not a mandatory limit? The doctor idea is a non-starter, though.
There is an upper limit that pretty much superseded the constitution, it’s called death. And with that there is a question if another lower limit is needed, especially since 1: there is already a removal clause due to inability 2: Those who obtain age of over 100 typically have delayed decline of abilities, thus a hard upper limit would not work, as it is excluding viable candidates, and one of the reasons that there is a lower age limit is that the founders took age as wisdom and thus the intent is to get wisdom into the Whitehouse.
This is my thought as well. Doctors are not infallible gods. They are people with faults and can be corrupted, just like anyone else. And what doctor openly identifies their political affilation (unless they are a politician)? Also, our political parties are unlikely to allow the opposition to have even an ember of control over their own elected officials - the idea of allowing someone from “the other side” having a say in how competent your guy/gal is…is curious.
