# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2019, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/61 "2019-09-10T11:25:52Z")
> [@BeagleJesus](#): > > 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. And when they get old enough they can take the reins and do what they think is right… (Unlikely that they will as their opinions will likely have change by then). But why should someone’s impatience mean that older people can’t use their experience to benefit the country? > [@](#): > > In my limited experience, Bingo. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m older than the max age now, but one thing I do know is the last person who should be running a country is myself at age 21. Now, no problem (compared to orangutan) > [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > 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. How ‘likely’? 90%? 1%? At this age I’ve forgotten more than my younger self ever knew. Yet I still know more that he did. > [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting. > [@XT](#): > > Why? Surly you don’t think that voting for someone is equivalent to actually holding a high stress elected position…do you??? 😕 Far more important. A voter decides who is elected. Morons shouldn’t be allowed near a voting booth. As most young people are not much smarter than that they probably shouldn’t be allowed, either. So, if the age limit for President is 35, then no one younger than that should be allowed to vote for them. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/62 "2019-09-11T05:18:13Z")
> [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting. I must admit that eliminating the AARP as an electoral factor would come as something of a relief. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/63 "2019-09-11T05:31:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Because when the response to the question “would this be a good idea if we could somehow enact this into law” is “it’s not currently the law”, then that’s threadshitting. “A law” does not equal “constitutional amendment.” The two things are entirely different entities. One way–although not the only way–in which they differ is that an amendment is about 3 orders of magnitude more difficult to enact. If you saw somebody carrying a plastic dog crate, and boasting that he was going to go out into the woods and use the crate to trap a bear, would you consider it “threadshitting” to point out that he was using the wrong equipment? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/64 "2019-09-11T14:00:11Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Far more important. A voter decides who is elected. Morons shouldn’t be allowed near a voting booth. As most young people are not much smarter than that they probably shouldn’t be allowed, either. So, if the age limit for President is 35, then no one younger than that should be allowed to vote for them. I’m hoping you were tongue in cheek here. The trouble is, who decides who is or isn’t a ‘moron’…and based on what criteria? Basically, any free citizen should be able to vote as long as they are competent enough to show up and get a ballot and make their mark. Holding office, however, is another matter. While I, personally, don’t think we should put a formal age limit on anyone (aside from 18 on the bottom end, and I could be convinced even that isn’t necessary), the fact is that elected office is a lot more stressful than going to the voting booth to select your candidate(s) and positions. It’s also defused over a larger population. Your 90 year old voter isn’t making THE crucial decision as to who is going to be elected…s/he is part of a collective of 10’s of thousands, 100’s of thousands or even millions making a collective decision. On the flip side, the guy or gal who wins has that all on their shoulders (well, and whatever staff they select), so it’s a much greater burden. Like I said, I don’t, personally think we should have or need some sort of formal age limit for candidates or even appointments. That should be up to the voters and part of their calculus of decision making (such as it is) for who they select. But it’s kind of ridiculous to say that if there was, that the same would apply to the voters too, as it’s apples to orangutans. ---
**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 11, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/65 "2019-09-11T20:20:32Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > “A law” does not equal “constitutional amendment.” The two things are entirely different entities. One way–although not the only way–in which they differ is that an amendment is about 3 orders of magnitude more difficult to enact. > > If you saw somebody carrying a plastic dog crate, and boasting that he was going to go out into the woods and use the crate to trap a bear, would you consider it “threadshitting” to point out that he was using the wrong equipment? The discussion isn’t _about_ the equipment. It’s about whether bears should be trapped. In this thread, people are saying bears should probably be trapped, and discussing whether trapping bears would be better than not trapping bears. The response “Amassing the equipment to trap bears would be hard and thus end of discussion” is indeed threadshitting, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698/66 "2019-09-12T02:37:59Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’m hoping you were tongue in cheek here. The trouble is, who decides who is or isn’t a ‘moron’…and based on what criteria? Basically, any free citizen should be able to vote as long as they are competent enough to show up and get a ballot and make their mark. I remember many a discussion on people not having the capability of getting their picture on an ID to prove their eligibility to vote. I would think that would be the minimum requirement. > [@](#): > > Holding office, however, is another matter. Is it? Someone is electing orangutans into office. You can’t blame the Orangutan as he is just flinging shit like all orangutan’s do. It is the people in the voting booth doing the damage. > [@](#): > > While I, personally, don’t think we should put a formal age limit on anyone (aside from 18 on the bottom end, and I could be convinced even that isn’t necessary), It is entirely necessary. A person under a certain age doesn’t have the life experience to make decisions that could affect people for generations to come. And while you may say that the decisions made by the current crop of monkeys aren’t that great I can only imagine the disaster that an idealistic 18 year old would unleash on the world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-should-be-an-age-limit-on-the-presidency/839698.md?page=3)