The strongest argument for an upper age limit for the presidency is sitting in office right now. Not for dementia reasons, but so that they live long enough to be prosecuted and punished for their actions.
The strongest argument for an upper age limit for the presidency is sitting in office right now. Not for dementia reasons, but so that they live long enough to be prosecuted and punished for their actions.
The problem is not age, it' s the ruling on "Citicens United".
Definitely on your side, but it' s still: "Cause vs Reason"
@makeitmythic Maybe they felt (as I used to) that the lower limit helps ensure breadth of experience and maturity, but it's up to the voters (originally the states themselves) to have confidence and faith in their choices.
There may have been a time when elected officials acted in the best interest of their office and the people they represent, but they only seem to represent their campaign funds and today's voters don't have enough education, sincerity, compassion, or concern for the consequences to make the right decisions.
Term limits and age limits for all our elected officials, in all branches of the Federal government would suit me just fine. I've been saying it for years, to anyone who would listen.
In Congress? You get 12 years, that's it. 3 years to serve to either support or check a President. You make a difference, or you don't. And then someone new takes your place.
Age 65, and you retire. That's it. Special election to cover your seat if in Congress. New judge on the bench. VP takes over, special election to name your replacement.
Over 65? Nope. Not happening. You're out.
The details can be left to people who are better suited for legal things.
Really it's about electing congresspeople who will impeach this behavior.
We don't need an age limit. We just need to stop electing and reelecting ineffective congresspeople.