There Should Be An Upper Limit On The President’s Age - 65 or 70

World Gone Wrong wrote:

Because it will offend the elderly? Boo-freaking-hoo!

Those elderly are a great voting block who turn out consistently, so never gonna happen.

I've been saying this exact same thing lately. Lets just make it 45-65 years old to be president. Easy - by 45 you've probably built up enough experience at something to get you qualified to be nominated, and by 65 you're at least starting to decline.

World Gone Wrong wrote:

We’ve always had the age 35+ stipulation for U.S. Presidents, but why not an upper limit? Because it will offend the elderly? Boo-freaking-hoo!

Yes, nobody wants to offend older people. They are very vocal and vote at a very high rate. Plus it could be illegal age discrimination. Having said all that I would have preferred someone younger but the major parties have to look at electability.

Limit on age?

Sure, voters shouldn't elect an old dude who is out of touch.

This conversation had more value during the primaries than Inauguration Day.

tycobb wrote: Plus it could be illegal age discrimination.

Not if it were put into law...

L L wrote:

This conversation had more value during the primaries than Inauguration Day.

I would contend it’s of equal value. Thanks.

They already had this conversation during the primaries. It’s still relevant now.

My mother-in-law, who is in her mid 70s, said the same thing today.

I am inclined to agree. The only problem is that when the ipad-addicted babies of today come of age, they will be incapable of sound decision making and we elderly millenials will need to hang on to our power for as long as possible to prevent catastrophe.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

I am inclined to agree. The only problem is that when the ipad-addicted babies of today come of age, they will be incapable of sound decision making and we elderly millenials will need to hang on to our power for as long as possible to prevent catastrophe.

This is why it happens.

You think you're better than the younger generations simply because of some 'good old days' type nonsense.

You're the ones that are more likely to not try to keep in touch with the modern world and be a useless dodderer by the time you're 55.

If voters cared they would stop electing the geezers. 65 seems like a good cut off.

So far that would have eliminated

a) Trump

b) Reagan

c) Harrison

d) Buchan

Not exactly a murders row of great presidents with 2 of them dominating the worst ever lists, 1 dying after 30 days in office, and the last have a really mixed record and basically being incapacated in their 2nd term.

Ideally the voters would do the right thing and stop voting for these guys but it turns out that the voting market might not be efficient. We might need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves...

Yes, laws are illegal. That is what the Supreme Court is for.

tycobb wrote:

World Gone Wrong wrote:

We’ve always had the age 35+ stipulation for U.S. Presidents, but why not an upper limit? Because it will offend the elderly? Boo-freaking-hoo!

Yes, nobody wants to offend older people. They are very vocal and vote at a very high rate. Plus it could be illegal age discrimination. Having said all that I would have preferred someone younger but the major parties have to look at electability.

If it's age discrimination to have an upper limit would it bot be discrimination to have a lower age limit.

Uncle Sammy wrote:

Yes, laws are illegal. That is what the Supreme Court is for.

??

I’m talking about a hypothetical in which the constitution is amended. I’m sorry if that’s beyond your comprehension.

World Gone Wrong wrote:

L L wrote:

This conversation had more value during the primaries than Inauguration Day.

I would contend it’s of equal value. Thanks.

During the primaries, you can choose to not vote for an old person in your party.

Right now there is no action to take.

I didn’t vote for someone who would be 80 as president in the primary I voted in.

trollism wrote:

This is why it happens.

You think you're better than the younger generations simply because of some 'good old days' type nonsense.

That is what I am talking about. Can't be done. Amendments can't violate the constitution. 14th Amendment provides for equal protection.

L L wrote:

World Gone Wrong wrote:

I would contend it’s of equal value. Thanks.

During the primaries, you can choose to not vote for an old person in your party.

Right now there is no action to take.

I didn’t vote for someone who would be 80 as president in the primary I voted in.

I’m not talking about merely voting for a younger man, because that obviously didn’t work, but amending the constitution so that 65 or 70 is the upper limit just as 35 is the lower limit. The constitution has ALWAYS served to protect Americans from themselves. Do you not understand this?

It’s no less relevant now than it was during the primaries—in fact, I think many people would be more receptive to it than ever, having just reluctantly decided between two divisive septuagenarians. If you’re hung up on “Well why didn’t you vote for a young guy? Nothing could be done now...” then you’re not good for a very interesting discussion.