Presidential age upper limit

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I guess with the concept of an upper age limit, there are some things to think about.  Not everyone mentally declines at the same rate or even at all.  The same with physical issues.

I know people much younger who make me wonder how in the hell they found their way out of their house in the morning.  Yet my grandmother was into her 80s and sharp as a tack.  An aunt I recently visited is in her mid-80s (and physically quite unwell) and I would put her memory and intelligence up against almost anyone.  She's been blind for decades so her memory is super important as is her attention to detail.

There will always be outliers.  Younger and older.  But as for age alone being the determining factor, I am not real good with that.

Fair point. I’ve always wondered what makes a 40 year old idiot better at governance that a 25 year old genius.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Perhaps regular mental exams would probably be a better choice than a hard age limit.

[arewethereyet]

One thing that always fascinated me about the aunt I mention above is her ability to use all her senses to make up for not being able to see.

When we lived in SC (where she had never been) we were going to go visit her and her husband. They were out by a lake in NC (she still is) and at the time cell phones and GPS units weren't a thing most people had. Even now you probably can't get signal anyway. I called my uncle to get directions to their place as the maps and atlas weren't terribly helpful either. He handed the phone to her. She gave nearly door to door directions. She had NEVER even seen the drive to her house.

Any time anyone needed directions to just about anywhere, he handed her the phone. They had been a military family and I swear she could/can get you from point A to point B no matter where it is you wanting to go. It's an amazing thing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thought that pushed me to post this thread was the fact that civilian airline pilots have a mandatory retirement at 65, and that with highly automated airplanes. They "only" have 400 - 500 lives (at most) in their hands.

[Jackalope]

Call me a cynic, but any changes to the qualifications to be president will absolutely require a constitutional amendment and the chances of that happening are approximately the same as me winning the lottery twice in a row. Unfucking the brains of the electorate, likewise.

The last decade has really illuminated both how inadequate our Constitution is, and the impossibility of amending it in the prevailing political climate.

[Angrboda]

If Biden wins, that might get a whole lot easier.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If Biden wins, that might get a whole lot easier.

He better have some big coattails.

[AFTT47]

Constitutional amendments require approval by a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and ratification by 75% of the states. The President is irrelevant.

Constitutional amendments need to be non-controversial to have a chance. In the current environment though, what tune to whistle while taking a shit is controversial.

[Pat Mustard]

I don't think there should be an upper age limit for presidency because it seems that medical science is advancing so that people will live longer, and maybe improve the quality of life for older people. For example, I watched 60 minutes a few days ago and they said how 90% of people born today will live to be 100 years old. And if 90% live to be hundred years old then I guess 30% will leave to be 150.

No the upper limit is pretty much at about 120, and I'm very sceptical of the "90% live to 100" figure too. We have serious trouble getting the average age past the early eighties and in some countries like the US the limit has plateaued lower than that. Plus there's also the issue that unless there's a severe correcting of the economic system (either through heavy wealth taxation or revolution), the prosperity gap is going to get ever wider with social mobility stopping stone dead, that's not a good recipe for extending life for most people.