Opinion Why Is There No Maximum Age Limit for U.S. Presidents?

tonil

tonil

Reaction Belt
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
12,865
Reaction score
7,483
I've been wondering about the logic behind allowing individuals of advanced age to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In many professions, people retire at 65 due to concerns around energy levels, cognitive sharpness, and the natural limitations that come with aging. Yet, when it comes to the presidency — one of the most demanding and high-responsibility roles in the world — there is no maximum age limit.

We currently see candidates and officeholders like Joe Biden and Donald Trump, both well into their 70s and 80s, still actively campaigning or serving. How is this considered acceptable from a practical standpoint? Shouldn’t there be some form of upper age limit or at least cognitive and physical assessments to ensure they’re still fit to lead?

I’m not trying to be ageist, but considering the critical decisions a president must make — involving national security, international diplomacy, and emergency response — shouldn’t there be more scrutiny around this? What are the arguments for and against setting an upper age limit for presidential candidates?
 
Is there any political position that has a maximum age limit?
 
Older people have a lot of experience and more political and social connections. Politicians and especially presidents are decision makers, and perform a role where there physical aptitude isn't a factor, and the wisdom from experience is far more important.

Plus everyone ages different. Warren Buffet worked till he was 94. I don't think anyone who worked for him or with him the last 20 years would have wanted anything different.
 
tonil said:
I've been wondering about the logic behind allowing individuals of advanced age to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. In many professions, people retire at 65 due to concerns around energy levels, cognitive sharpness, and the natural limitations that come with aging. Yet, when it comes to the presidency — one of the most demanding and high-responsibility roles in the world — there is no maximum age limit.

We currently see candidates and officeholders like Joe Biden and Donald Trump, both well into their 70s and 80s, still actively campaigning or serving. How is this considered acceptable from a practical standpoint? Shouldn’t there be some form of upper age limit or at least cognitive and physical assessments to ensure they’re still fit to lead?

I’m not trying to be ageist, but considering the critical decisions a president must make — involving national security, international diplomacy, and emergency response — shouldn’t there be more scrutiny around this? What are the arguments for and against setting an upper age limit for presidential candidates?
Click to expand...

See there's this thing in America called lawsuits and America really likes them a lot. The problem with your argument is limiting someone on age alone leaves you open for discrimination lawsuits, and you know the one thing America needs more of is more court rooms tied up with lawsuits (sarcasm). Plus, getting younger generally, would skew party demographics. This is not to say there are not young Republicans because there certainly are but if I remember correctly out of all the youngest American Presidents in history the only one who would likely be considered a Republican today is Franklin Pierce.
 
I'm surprised to see people argue against it, especially after seeing Biden in action and now trump, both pushing 80 and clearly declining mentally.
 
Doing it with chronological age doesn't realy work because everybody ages differently.

Voting is supposed to take care of this problem, but we're also not supposed to have a corrupt media actively covering up for dems who do have dementia and refused to take a cognitive test. One guy in 2020 asked him about his refusal to take a cognitive test, and Biden called the black guy a crackhead and told him to take a cocaine test, and the rest of the media just moved on like it never happened and told everyone he was "sharp as a tack" and "the best Biden ever, and eff you if you can't handle that"
 
I tend to agree with some of the other posts that people age differently. There is definitely wisdom with age in general and usually the election process will take care of identifying people who are unfit due to age decline. I think for Biden it was just an age where he was right on the cusp and it wasn't until the debates that it was apparent.
 
Rational Poster said:
Older people have a lot of experience and more political and social connections. Politicians and especially presidents are decision makers, and perform a role where there physical aptitude isn't a factor, and the wisdom from experience is far more important.

Plus everyone ages different. Warren Buffet worked till he was 94. I don't think anyone who worked for him or with him the last 20 years would have wanted anything different.
Click to expand...
Good point but politics should be different ?
Its a bit weird to have seniors 'sending' younger generations to war for example
Although thats a different topic i think the wars are on soldiers to decide in the end and they most of the time say yes lets go ?
 
Because people only REALLY care when its something they can criticize their political opponents over. Joe Biden could perhaps be a turning point in that way of thinking.
 
We had Biden who was mentally declining and now Trump has been caught on camera twice napping in public and only been in office for over a 100 days.
That is not even taking into account Trump’s word salads and other dumb shit he says
I for one am for a maximum of 65 years for a President after getting 2 Sundowning Presidents in a row.
 
It’s “our DEMOCRACY”..
If the voters want to elect a zombie to lead them it’s their right.
 
Rational Poster said:
Older people have a lot of experience and more political and social connections. Politicians and especially presidents are decision makers, and perform a role where there physical aptitude isn't a factor, and the wisdom from experience is far more important.

Plus everyone ages different. Warren Buffet worked till he was 94. I don't think anyone who worked for him or with him the last 20 years would have wanted anything different.
Click to expand...
I agree but I also think it tends to get worse a little bit. I think the world has been changing way faster than it used to change, so it can cause a disconnect. The wisdom and experience from these guys would be better used as consultative tools than as an ultimate decision maker.

Try explain what AI and language models really are to somebody this old.. dudes half the age doesnt properly understand it. My half cent
 
tonil said:
Good point but politics should be different ?
Its a bit weird to have seniors 'sending' younger generations to war for example
Although thats a different topic i think the wars are on soldiers to decide in the end and they most of the time say yes lets go ?
Click to expand...

I dunno that seems a little backwards to me. Older people especially those that have seen war aren't as gung-ho as young glory seekers.
 
Because there's nothing in our Constitution that defines a maximum age limit. The average life expectancy when it was written was half of today's. Naturally, the framers didn't expect senility to be an issue as a result.

Some Americans treat the Constitution as if it were divine text, but it was written imperfectly by imperfect men who could not dream of the future we have today.
 
Founding Fathers never thought the country would be stupid enough to vote for 80 year olds to lead the nation

Politicians like riding that gravy train until literally their deathbed and know if they set an age limit for presidents, age limit for congress would make sense as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,112
Messages
57,379,709
Members
175,688
Latest member
classicalthunder

Share this page

Back
Top