# There should be an age limit on the Presidency. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2019, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698 "2019-09-04T18:03:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BeagleJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5daacb/32.png) [@BeagleJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeagleJesus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/21 "2019-09-05T17:20:11Z")
I think there is a huge problem in American politics where the older generation(s) simply refuse to let go of the reins and allow the younger generations to take the country in a direction they would like to see. In my limited experience, the older you get the more likely you will be satisfied with treading water and working hard to maintain the status quo and I am sick and tired of having to wait for the old guard to die before we can get some fresh blood into the political machine. I would drop the minimum age requirement to 21 and I would cap the max age at 55 for ALL elected positions as well as SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/22 "2019-09-05T17:58:48Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > If we agree that there are lots more important qualities in a candidate than their age, why should we disqualify candidates based on age? > > Your scenario is essentially that a (potential) majority of voters want to vote for the 90-year-old they agree with over the younger candidate they disagree with, but we should somehow prevent that 90-year-old, who has popular support of voters, from running? My scenario is that we (somehow) decide that after a given age (say, 65), there’s too high a probability that they’re going to be a bad president for one reason or another. The issue is not that we wish to screen out some _specific_ 90 year old; the issue is that we (somehow) decide that we don’t want _any_ geriatric in the position. The closest that any current old farts play in to the equation is that they’re belatedly showing us that the system in general isn’t doing a good job of keeping the seniles out, so steps should maybe be taken. As for some specific old dude being popular, I’m highly confident that were the rules to change, some other young dude would step into his shoes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/23 "2019-09-05T18:10:11Z")
Bigotry and ageism. Maybe since “some women get hysterical” :rolleyes: and get angry during their “time” we should also forbid women from being president. Or those blacks- we _know_ how they are, dont we? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/24 "2019-09-05T18:14:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Bigotry and ageism. > > Maybe since “some women get hysterical” :rolleyes: and get angry during their “time” we should also forbid women from being president. > > Or those blacks- we _know_ how they are, dont we? :rolleyes: Personally, I’ve never been swayed by “If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict _all_ aspects!”. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/25 "2019-09-05T18:19:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Personally, I’ve never been swayed by “If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict _all_ aspects!”. Heck, we’re already on the slope - there’s a _lower_ limit on age. Clearly, banning right-handed people is right around the corner. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/26 "2019-09-05T18:23:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are those of you opposed to any maximum age limit equally opposed to the existing minimum age limit? I am. I think it should be up to the voters to decide, case by case. And the problem with SCOTUS is not the lack of age limit, it’s the fact that it’s a lifetime appointment with very little chance of being removed from office before death. ---
**Author:** ![Osano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@Osano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osano)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/27 "2019-09-05T18:36:49Z")
Why? We already had a Regan who was known to have Dementia very early on and he is hailed and one of the best Presidents of the modern era. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/28 "2019-09-05T18:38:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Personally, I’ve never been swayed by “If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict _all_ aspects!”. And where did i say that? Restricting \*any \*aspect due to sex, age, race, religion, etc is bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/29 "2019-09-05T18:43:58Z")
> [@Osano](#): > > Why? We already had a Regan who was known to have Dementia very early on and he is hailed and one of the best Presidents of the modern era. Not by people who are sentient. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/30 "2019-09-05T19:05:10Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > My scenario is that we (somehow) decide that after a given age (say, 65), there’s too high a probability that they’re going to be a bad president for one reason or another. Right, I understand exactly what you’re arguing. I’m saying that limiting people from voting for who they want based on probabilities is a bad road to go down. A much better solution to that problem is to convince voters not to vote for old people, to convince older Presidents to select a cabinet that won’t be afraid to invoke the 25th Amendment and to select a Vice President who is younger and ready to step in. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/31 "2019-09-05T19:12:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Personally, I’ve never been swayed by “If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict _all_ aspects!”. More like “your rationale for restriction is invalid, because the same rationale should logically lead to other absurd restrictions.” ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/32 "2019-09-05T19:47:43Z")
Where do you draw the line? If old people are ineligible, what about felons? Make felons ineligible and bet that some rinky-dink state that hates XX will ram XX through a kangaroo court to make her a felon! The U.S.A. rightly prides itself on being the Land of Freedom. Enshrine criteria into law and you’ve taken freedom from the voters and given it to a law framed by an earlier generation. (Where I live a recent constitution dictated that only college grads can serve in Parliament IIRC. Some popular activists from rural areas became ineligible, while corrupt boss-men could still buy a a college degree if necessary.) Should the law require that Presidential candidates pass a psychiatric exam? Release their taxes? Show that their staffings satisfied some diversity criteria? _NO; such criteria might be enforced by opinion-makers, not by the LAW._ I’d have no problem with the politicos and editors in a smoke-filled room agreeing to reject candidates who don’t submit to mental evaluation, or who don’t release their taxes, or who aren’t exactly 43½ years old — that’s their right, but these criteria don’t have the force of law. Uh oh. We don’t have smoke-filled rooms anymore. Candidates are chosen by Facebook lies reposted by dimwits gulled by Russian trolls. Yeah; there are problems. Big problems that persnickety cosmetic fixes won’t solve. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/33 "2019-09-05T20:00:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The U.S.A. rightly prides itself on being the Land of Freedom. Enshrine criteria into law and you’ve taken freedom from the voters and given it to a law framed by an earlier generation. While I agree with this, this also requires that voters be given all the relevant information to make the judgment. Especially since being elected to certain positions means they are automatically granted access to classified information. So the voters should see everything that would normally be used as part of a security clearance background check. Tax returns included. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/34 "2019-09-05T20:05:31Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > I have to retire at 65 because society has determined that’s when my usefulness as an employee starts to sharply drop off. This is actually not true. Nobody has to retire at 65, and many people can’t afford to. 65 is just the age limit where society decided people should get various retirement benefits so that they don’t have to work if they don’t choose to. I’m in favor of elected officials being bound by an age limit of 70. No doubt that many people keep their faculties by the age of 70, but most people are already suffering some mental decline by that age. The Trump and Reagan presidencies highlight the fact that not only do we have no functioning mechanism to determine whether a president has lost his marbles, we lack the political capacity to ask the question. I’m actually OK with that. I wouldn’t want a president I like being harassed by constant mental health challenges from a hostile congress. For that same reason I’m OK that sitting presidents can’t be indicted. But if we’re going to be lax on elected officials that way, we should have more strict statutory limits on who gets to wield that kind of power. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/35 "2019-09-05T20:43:20Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Right, I understand exactly what you’re arguing. > > I’m saying that limiting people from voting for who they want based on probabilities is a bad road to go down. A much better solution to that problem is to convince voters not to vote for old people, to convince older Presidents to select a cabinet that won’t be afraid to invoke the 25th Amendment and to select a Vice President who is younger and ready to step in. It’s my observation that in America, the primary system and other party-related systemic issues tend to give most people no choice about how old the person they’re voting for is. I mean, yes, if your choice is a 76 year old democrat and a 75 year old republican, then a democrat COULD throw aside their principles and vote for the republican due to him being ‘young’, but in practical terms the system in place makes voting only for young people an unviable strategy. I don’t know that capping ages is the best way to deal with this, but it’s certainly _one_ way. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/36 "2019-09-05T21:02:05Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Pretty sure you’re looking at the wrong statistic here. That one likely incorporates childhood deaths. While lives have extended in the modern era, the average life expectancy of an _adult_ hasn’t changed that dramatically. > > Anyway, that’s relatively minor. > > I disagree with your idea. In fact, I think we should remove the existing age and natural-born requirements from the presidency. America should not have second-class citizens, be they young, old, or foreign-born. Everyone should be able to run for the office of the President. I agree with everything I quoted. Removal of the existing restrictions (35, time living in US etc) is not going to happen either because it would also require a constitutional amendment and nobody cares enough to go through that rigamarole on this issue. But conceptually it’s going the wrong way to add restrictions. If you don’t trust the people (even via the Electoral College, which isn’t the issue wrt age of candidates) to elect the right president then why have an elected president? Invite an unemployed noble to be constitutional monarch. 🙂 Seriously, the Founders had limited faith in the electorate (as reflected throughout the document, and also outside it in terms of states’ voter qualification requirements at the time), but the general evolution has been toward more. If medical advances allow people to be effective presidents in their 70’s or in the future their 90’s, then we have to have an amendment to allow that? Seems ridiculous to me. That’s exactly the sort of thing voters should decide without a lot of preconditions. As opposed to say changing individual rights where the ‘momentary passions of the people’ are rightly more constrained by the constitution’s text and courts’ interpretation of it. The existing restrictions on who can be president are the anomaly, not the fact that they aren’t more. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/37 "2019-09-05T21:14:01Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I don’t know how old you are, but today you can’t be [forced to retire because you’re 65](https://www.wrongfulterminationlaws.com/resources/wrongful-termination-law/discrimination-and-termination/forced-retirement.htm). There are exceptions- IIRC, you can’t be a pilot after 65, nor a FBI agent after 57, or a General in the military past 64, or an enlisted man past 62. I’m not at all sure why a FBI agent naturally loses his zip at 57, but we assume some geezer in his 70s is peachy keen for being President. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/38 "2019-09-05T21:23:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > There are exceptions- IIRC, you can’t be a pilot after 65, nor a FBI agent after 57, or a General in the military past 64, or an enlisted man past 62. > > I’m not at all sure why a FBI agent naturally loses his zip at 57, but we assume some geezer in his 70s is peachy keen for being President. The standard for restricting political power or participation should be substantially higher than for being a pilot or a general or any other occupation. I mean: I agree that people over 65 are more likely to have serious mental deficiencies in the next 4-8 years than younger people. That’s not in dispute. What’s disputed is whether that’s sufficient reason to keep people from voting for the candidate of their choice. I don’t think it is. I’m deeply suspicious of any restrictions on who may vote or whom they may vote for. I think the only requirement to vote or hold office in the US should be citizenship (and, maybe, term limits), and any other restrictions should be removed. Because restrictions are toxic to the idea of political freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/39 "2019-09-05T21:49:07Z")
> [@Unreconstructed\_Man](#): > > I have to retire at 65 because society has determined that’s when my usefulness as an employee starts to sharply drop off. Social Security has determined that you don’t get full retirement benefits until age 67, so “society” has determined (with money, which is what counts) you should work for at least a couple more years. > [@](#): > > We’ve got a 73 year old President and a 78 year old presumptive front runner. Both might very well be suffering from dementia. One can’t talk about a single topic for more than 30 seconds without wandering off into the weeds, and the other seems to think websites and phone numbers are the same thing. This is simply deranged. There’s another front-runner in the race who is 70 years old. The 2016 Democratic nominee is 71. The 2008 Republican nominee was 72 when he ran, and continued to serve in the Senate for another 8 years. Bob Dole was 73 when he ran in 1996 and remained politically active for another 20 years. > [@](#): > > I get that there are plenty of 80 year olds who are sharp as a tack (Bernie Sanders, for instance, doesn’t look like he’s slowing down…yet) More than HALF the justices on the Supreme Court are over age 65 (Sonia Sotomayor is 65, Samuel Alito 69, Clarence Thomas 71, Stephen Breyer 81, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86. The Pope is 83 and Queen freakin’ Elizabeth is 93. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/40 "2019-09-05T22:44:30Z")
Remember those old men in front of the Kremlin looking at soldiers parading by? They were all younger than the current crop of geriatrics running for president. (Trump 73, Biden 76, Sanders 77, Warren 70 Khrushchev died at 77, Breshnev at 75, Andropov at 69, Chernenko at 73) What is up with Americans and their politicians? Do they think people get smarter as they age? (Have they met their grandparents?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698.md?page=3)