Non-Partisan discussion... when are you too old to be in office?

[ryanosaur]

I hate to post a...
*gulps loudly
...nother political thread.


But today we are faced with yet another headline of one of our political leaders showing obvious signs of being unfit for office due to their age.

Complaints have been made before. Numerous complaints. Do we need to rehash them all?
Let's just name a few current options:
McConnell (81), Feinstein (90), Biden (80), Pelosi (83... but to be fair, she also stepped aside from her leadership role), Grassley (89)...
And let's also consider that if Biden was "too old" at 78, Trump will be 78 if elected again... or... the same age as Biden for his current term as president.

A quick perusal showed a slew of Democrats as 8 of the 10 oldest folk in The House with the youngest of this group being 80. Including the two independents caucusing with the Dems in the Senate, there are 7 among the 10 oldest with the youngest being 76.

So where does this fit in to any sort of common sense approach to discussing the topic? Again, trying to keep partisianship out of this and ignoring political hit pieces, you still have concerns being raised about Biden, Feinstein and most currently (today), McConnell.

Is this a true problem?
Do we, as voters, need to actively choose to not elect anybody over a certain age knowing that this may well be a disservice to an otherwise healthy and potentially good political leader?
Do we need Term Limits and Age limits established by legislation?

Is this a complete nothing-burger?

Again... PLEASE... lets keep the partisan BS out of this discussion and talk about whether this is a real issue facing our country.

Please discuss.

 

[adk highlander]

This is hard but some sort of cognitive standardized test would be necessary. I am no fan of Mr. McConnell but that was scary to see. I wonder if this is a result of his concussion.

 

[ryanosaur]

It may be worthwhile to ask about and discuss whether it is possible to have a reasonable set of requirements which any person seeking higher federal office needs to pass prior to running. After all, there is no reason to discriminate based on age and I am not meaning to suggest such in this thread.

 

[Steve81]

So where does this fit in to any sort of common sense approach to discussing the topic? Again, trying to keep partisianship out of this and ignoring political hit pieces, you still have concerns being raised about Biden, Feinstein and most currently (today), McConnell.

Is this a true problem?
Do we, as voters, need to actively choose to not elect anybody over a certain age knowing that this may well be a disservice to an otherwise healthy and potentially good political leader?
Do we need Term Limits and Age limits established by legislation?

Please discuss.

I think it’s reasonable to have age limits. Age related cognitive decline is very real.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If memory serves me right, term limits were considered in the past but was shut down by the supreme court.
But I could be wrong.
If not wrong, age limit may follow the same trac. Some are too old at 75, others may be fine at 90.
Tough question.
Yes, McConnel's 2nd freeze in 32 days. Had to be caused by his fall.

My half-brother lived in Montreal. Goes out in the winter with ice out there, he was going to walk to the bank. Of course, he fell, hit his head and died withing 2 weeks or
less.

 

[isolar8001]

If memory serves me right, term limits were considered in the past but was shut down by the supreme court.
But I could be wrong.
If not wrong, age limit may follow the same trac. Some are too old at 75, others may be fine at 90.
Tough question.
Yes, McConnel's 2nd freeze in 32 days. Had to be caused by his fall.

My half-brother lived in Montreal. Goes out in the winter with ice out there, he was going to walk to the bank. Of course, he fell, hit his head and died withing 2 weeks or
less.

Totally agree with this topic...being President/In Politics is extremely demanding.

Every single day, somewhere to go...speeches..conferences...dinners...functions, etc. times 50.
I can't imagine doing any of that at 66 yet alone 80 !!
There is just no way to stay on your best game with those demands.

Granted aging affects everyone differently, but one thing's for sure....you never get spunkier/quicker/smarter as time goes by !
70 should be the limit.
Sorry about your half brother.

 

[lovinthehd]

I think we've allowed too many politicians too long a residency too many times....but there have been some that still perform reasonably with older age otoh. The current presidential choice is not my favorite regardless of side....they're both too old. Maybe VPs are more important now.....but doubt many will like that. I'd like to see an age limit as well as term limit, but most importantly, a campaign $ fund limitation.

 

[ben_]

I will say there is such a thing as too old, not so much because of cognitive decline, but because many won't be around to live with the long term effects of their actions and policies. I don't want someone who won't live long enough to really see the impact of global warming, voting on climate legislation, for example.

 

[cpp]

Age well we all get old, its going to occur but these politicians made a life living in Congress . I think in Congress its more to do with term limits than the age of a person. Staying in office getting rich and doing little to benefit your district or the country that put you in office, well in any other job you would be let go. I say Term limits = 12 years and your out regardless of who you are or what you have done. That would take care of the age. If you and the others can't get something accomplished in 12 years , well you don't have a right to be there in the first place. And for Congressional members, all need a real honest health and cognitive evaluation. McConnel, Feinstein and even Pres Biden are presently having health issues and should be evaluated. I like how they handle this in the Military, the ranking medical doctor has the authority to remove a member from their service duty, regardless of rank, its called Positional Authority.... Presidents, I'll throw up age 75 as a cap. Why who the freak knows, its a number.

 

[isolar8001]

 

[Mr._Clark]

Personally I'd pick 70 as the maximum age for president.

For the House and Senate it doesn't bother me as much because both can continue to function even if several members can't. Having said that, I'd prefer a limit of 70 for those institutions as well.

Both would probably require amendments to the Constitution:

>>>Maximum age limits are considered unconstitutional. Part of the reason that's true dates back to 1995. At the time, Arkansas attempted to deny ballot access to prospective U.S. representatives who had already served three terms and prospective U.S. senators who had already served two terms.

That case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The court ruled that the Framers could have created term limits for lawmakers in Congress but chose not to, suggesting that they did not intend for term limits to be part of the Constitution.

The same could be argued against maximum age limits, according to Jeremy Paul, who teaches at Northeastern University School of Law.

"Whether you're talking about adding term limits or whether you're talking about a maximum age, you're still changing the qualifications that are set out in the Constitution," Paul said.<<<

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/31/1190675707/mcconnell-feinstein-medical-episodes-maximum-age-limits

Cognitive testing seems like a more logical way to address the issue, but it would probably lead to endless arguments about the criteria, litigation about whether or not the test was administered properly, etc.

A bright-line age limit would undoubtedly keep some capable people out. On the other hand, there would still be plenty of capable people who could serve and meet an age limit requirement.

With regards to judges, I have mixed feelings about it. There has been a controversy concerning judge Newman, who is 96 years old.

Judicial Disability and the “Great Dissenter”

Guest Post by Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law The judicial disability proceedings instituted …

patentlyo.com

It's unclear exactly what is driving the effort to remove judge Newman. Most of it seems to be closed-door. According to public reports, it is based at least in part on statements by staff that Newman is losing it.

Newman writes a lot of dissenting opinions, and these seem to be well-written. This creates the appearance that the other judges want to push her out because they are tired of getting skewered by Newman in her dissents.

 

[highfigh]

I hate to post a...
*gulps loudly
...nother political thread.


But today we are faced with yet another headline of one of our political leaders showing obvious signs of being unfit for office due to their age.

Complaints have been made before. Numerous complaints. Do we need to rehash them all?
Let's just name a few current options:
McConnell (81), Feinstein (90), Biden (80), Pelosi (83... but to be fair, she also stepped aside from her leadership role), Grassley (89)...
And let's also consider that if Biden was "too old" at 78, Trump will be 78 if elected again... or... the same age as Biden for his current term as president.

A quick perusal showed a slew of Democrats as 8 of the 10 oldest folk in The House with the youngest of this group being 80. Including the two independents caucusing with the Dems in the Senate, there are 7 among the 10 oldest with the youngest being 76.

So where does this fit in to any sort of common sense approach to discussing the topic? Again, trying to keep partisianship out of this and ignoring political hit pieces, you still have concerns being raised about Biden, Feinstein and most currently (today), McConnell.

Is this a true problem?
Do we, as voters, need to actively choose to not elect anybody over a certain age knowing that this may well be a disservice to an otherwise healthy and potentially good political leader?
Do we need Term Limits and Age limits established by legislation?

Is this a complete nothing-burger?

Again... PLEASE... lets keep the partisan BS out of this discussion and talk about whether this is a real issue facing our country.

Please discuss.

Term limits would solve this but if a candidate wins and they're of similar age to what we already have, they could slide past. Still, they would only have a couple of term, at maximum.

I saw that someone posted a YT video with 'Fetterman for President?!' as the title. Seriously?

I used to think the Doctors treating POTUS would step up if they thought cognitive decline was occurring. I must have been drunk. The current Dr is not doing their job or they're not testing for this.

 

[highfigh]

I think we've allowed too many politicians too long a residency too many times....but there have been some that still perform reasonably with older age otoh. The current presidential choice is not my favorite regardless of side....they're both too old. Maybe VPs are more important now.....but doubt many will like that. I'd like to see an age limit as well as term limit, but most importantly, a campaign $ fund limitation.

Maybe we could go back to the original system of placing the #2 candidate for POTUS as VP. They may not like each other or agree on everything, but they would be required to do what THE COUNTRY needs, not push their agenda with no opposition. Maybe they could be required to discuss/debate executive orders, too.

 

[j_garcia]

You are too old when you are Mitch McConnell and you freeze while talking.

Sen. Mitch McConnell appears to freeze again at a Kentucky event

The Republican leader was silent for more than 30 seconds after he was asked whether he will run for re-election. He froze at a news conference in July.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Swerd]

Is this a true problem?

It's not a true problem. The real cause of our seemingly impotent Congress is not the ages of the senators & representatives, but in who they answer to. Dark Money that supports elected politicians, and Supreme Court Justices, has severely distorted things. We don't know how much money they get, nor do we know who supplies the money. That affects all elected politicians regardless of their age. The money is simply too much to refuse or to retire from.

Do we, as voters, need to actively choose to not elect anybody over a certain age knowing that this may well be a disservice to an otherwise healthy and potentially good political leader?

I distinctly remember the Vietnam War debates during the late 1960s. I was in college, and was eligible for the draft. A widespread opinion among us young guys, was that old politicians should not decide to fight wars that only young men will have to fight. Nothing came of that back then, and I don't see that changing now.

During the 1990s, the GOP won a majority in the House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich's slogan "A Contract For America". (I always liked calling it A Contract On America.) A major item was age limits for Congress. When Newt and his GOP buddies stayed in power long enough, nearly all of them ignored their promise to step down after 3 terms. It seems age limits are called for only by the party out of power. (See PJ O'Rourke below.)

Do we need Term Limits and Age limits established by legislation?

I agree with @Mr._Clark . Legislation won't do. It requires Constitutional amendment. That's not going to happen under the present political conditions.

Is this a complete nothing-burger?

Yep, a complete nothing-burger. As I said, amending the constitution to create age limits is Highly Unlikely.

And creating cognitive tests to identify impaired judgement? Where do I begin? What tests would that be? And who would decide the results of those tests? A better question would be, "Do you want fries with your nothing-burger?"

I never really liked PJ O'Rourke, but he was known for saying this appropriate quote:

"Democrats say government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans say government doesn’t work. Once elected, they prove it."​

 

[Swerd]

Maybe we could go back to the original system of placing the #2 candidate for POTUS as VP. They may not like each other or agree on everything, but they would be required to do what THE COUNTRY needs, not push their agenda with no opposition. Maybe they could be required to discuss/debate executive orders, too.

That was tried, and it failed. John Adams was president, and his opponent Thomas Jefferson became vice president. Jefferson spent all his time undermining Adams and campaigning to replace him. It got very ugly. It was later removed from the Constitution by amendment. It would require a new amendment to reinstate it.

 

[highfigh]

That was tried, and it failed. John Adams was president, and his opponent Thomas Jefferson became vice president. Jefferson spent all his time undermining Adams and campaigning to replace him. It got very ugly. It was later removed from the Constitution by amendment. It would require a new amendment to reinstate it.

Right, but it could be reinstated with conditions that they work together. Once we find people whose main interest is the country, maybe we can get somewhere instead of the rancor we have now.

I'll ride out on my Unicorn to see if any can be found. Where's the nearest Utopia?

 

[Swerd]

Right, but it could be reinstated with conditions that they work together. Once we find people whose main interest is the country, maybe we can get somewhere instead of the rancor we have now.

I'll ride out on my Unicorn to see if any can be found. Where's the nearest Utopia?

While you saddle up your Unicorn, I'll check to see how much of my mortgage I want to bet against your idea's success. With my winnings, I'll invest heavily in whoever sells Nothing Burgers.

 

[Trell]

That was tried, and it failed. John Adams was president, and his opponent Thomas Jefferson became vice president. Jefferson spent all his time undermining Adams and campaigning to replace him. It got very ugly. It was later removed from the Constitution by amendment. It would require a new amendment to reinstate it.

USA could do like France and just abolish the position of vice president.

 

[Swerd]

Here's my personal assessment of past presidents that I remember, and whether their age mattered to their presidency.

Eisenhower – Was not a good politician, but was highly experienced and probably not too old.
Kennedy – Too young to die. Maybe too young to keep it zipped up.
Johnson – Highly experienced and very complex. Too hard for me to view objectively.
Nixon – Expletive Deleted. He was probably always an SOB from the day he was born.
Ford – Once he pardoned Nixon, he became a temporary caretaker president.
Carter – Just the right age, not that it mattered.
Reagan – By his 2nd term, he was clearly developing Alzheimer's.
Bush – An experienced politician, but evidently not experienced enough. He angered all GOP by reinstating some taxes, making him a 1-term president.
Clinton – Also too young to keep it zipped up.
W – Dumber than a sack of rocks. Was delighted when Trump unseated him as Worst President Ever.
Obama – The first black man to be president. His age had nothing to do with that.
Trump – See Expletive Deleted (above)
Biden – Could be both experienced & wily. So wily that he takes advantage of being underestimated.

Bottom line? Age may have had something to do with Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton. But two of them were too young, not too old. Age was not an issue with the others.