Should be there an age limit for president?

Forum category

Choice one means no one (say past 70) can run for president, no matter if it is a first or second term. The second choice means no on past a certain age (say 70) could run for first term, and no one past say 74 could run for a second term.

The current presidential election is quite a match up. A reductionist might say it is choosing between a candidate who is becoming mentally feeble and a convicted felon. Both men could become mentally impaired before their terms are up and their average age is about the average age for a man to die in America.

Most people retire before they are 78 or 81 for good reason. That is rather late to start a four year commitment, IMO.

The president of the U.S. might still be the most powerful person in the world. Should we restrict the age of those who hold this office to reduce the chances of poor decision making due to aging minds? If a CEO of a big corporation develops dementia, he can easily be replaced, the consequences of his choices could not destroy the world. It is different with the office of president.

My personal view: no one should be able to run for the first term who is over 70, and no one is able to run for a second term who is over 74. What do you think.

Should there be an age limit for first time candidates for president?

Yes, a person should not be allowed to run for office past a certain age, whether first or second term..
26% (5 votes)
Yes, a person should not be allowed to run unless it is a second term (age plus 4).
5% (1 vote)
Undecided
0% (0 votes)
No, the voters can determine is one is too old to run for office.
37% (7 votes)
No. Aging, mental sharpness, and health, varies so much there should be no rule.
32% (6 votes)
Other
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 19

Discussion

Really, the question is addressed primarily at President Biden, and the thing that needs to be remembered is that Reagan was still fairly sharp at age 77 in 1988. Yes, there were concerns, but Reagan at age 77 was by and large sharper than Biden was in 1972 at age 30.

(yes, a comparison to Biden at any age, let alone now, is not exactly a gold standard for mental acuity, but in our position today, that's the first comparison we ought to be making)

In my view, what we've got on both sides of the aisle is that too many voters are looking past obvious traits of candidates in a tribalistic mindset, and just like other tribal wars, the effects are devastating.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

As much as I respect President Reagan, and believe he was absolutely our best modern president, there were occasional “concerns” as you put it, about his age and cognitive abilities near the end of his 2nd term in office. However, almost 2 years out of office, in 1990, he had surgery for a blood clot on the brain, and for the next 3 years, he took (and passed) a comprehensive annual 4-hour set of mental and cognitive tests. That answered pretty definitively the question of his mental state. Then, it was in 1994 that he announced he had Alzheimer’s, perhaps detected by those tests.

Rather than age, I would think extensive testing annually would be the way to judge political leaders over a certain age. On the other hand, professional pilots do age out at 65, and they are responsible for far fewer lives than the President, governors, and other leaders have responsibility for. If testing is refused, then there should be an age limit that comes into play.

Dave Barnhart

I would favor an age limit for presidential candidates. No candidate who is older than 65 when elected can serve.

....when one considers that the rule would eliminate the second term of Andrew Jackson, Harrison, Buchanan, the 2nd term of Ike, both terms of Reagan, and of course Trump and Biden. It's a mixed bag, and it's better to let the public have their say, and do some of the things that it will take to ensure cogent leadership.

One of the key things that comes to mind as we try to get more cogent leadership is that we need to get leadership that understands the difference between "can" and "should". You "can" do any number of things when you have 50% plus one vote in Congress, but the reality is that when you do that--e.g. "Obamacare"--that can hamstring your party for a long, long time.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

>>Hard to justify….when one considers that the rule would eliminate the second term of Andrew Jackson, Harrison, Buchanan, the 2nd term of Ike, both terms of Reagan, and of course Trump and Biden.<<

That’s why I wouldn’t personally choose age as the deciding factor UNLESS the person refuses the proposed tests, in which case age seems like a good second check. Many people are competent and vigorous after 65, but not all. Just as a pilot can lose his/her wings by failing a medical, the same could be done for leaders older than 65 who can’t pass a competency exam (or refuse to take one). It might seem harsh, but IMHO, it would be justified given the responsibilities they have.

Dave Barnhart

Yes, he’s old, yes he has dementia and likely Parkinson’s. But those aren’t his real problems.

He holds (and, though sometimes loses his train of thought, still capably articulates) HORRIBLE policies.

Biden should be voted out (or better try him for treason) for his corrupt involvement with other countries and his intentional failure to enforce our border laws.