The Constitution’s only age requirement for President of the United States says a candidate must be at least 35 years old. This year I have been wondering why there is no maximum age limit. If John McCain were elected, he’d be 76 at the end of his first term! As a woman of a (ahem) certain age herself, I am not condoning ageism in general, but believe that the leader of a nation like ours should be vigorous, strong, and able to withstand the stresses, both physical and mental, that the job entails. I think we can all agree that it is quite possibly one of the most stressful “jobs” in existence. In addition, I think someone in their late 60’s/70’s is likely to be too entrenched in their ideas to be able to meet modern challenges with modern solutions.

Even at a life expectancy of 75.4 years (the average lifespan of a white male), voting for someone like John McCain (or Ron Paul) is – not trying to be too macabre – could really a vote for whoever they select as running mate.
Ron Paul will be 73 by the November 2008 presidential election. John McCain will be 72. The others, in descending age order are Mitt Romney 61, Hillary Clinton 61, Mike Huckabee 53, and Barack Obama 47 (all ages at time of November 2008 election).

My question is simple:

Should there be a maximum age limit for presidential candidates? Why or why not?

I don't know - how old is the youngest Republican candidate?


Seriously - I wouldn't want to put a limit on age. Instead, I would hope that the process would expose any age-related problems in candidates, and that people would vote accordingly. Who can predict what happens in the four years after that?

Getting somebody incompetent out of office is a problem, though. I remember when Reagan was losing it, there was some talk of what to do - but if you have some process for removal, you are talking about a few men undoing the voting of the whole country. It could lead to some truly creepy situations. I'm a little surprised Cheney hasn't tried to seize power by now.

It's unexplainable to me how in the world John McCain has risen to this level since just last summer. Given his age as cited above, I always considered it a foregone conclusion that he would never get the Republican nomination. IMO we have such "heavy duty" problems to confront one would think that voting in a younger candidate would be obvious, but apparently not , as evidenced by the California returns this PM. My only hope now is that OBAMA will get the Democratic nomination and win in the general.

Certainly not. It is the right of every American to pursue the Office of President if they are able-bodied. And if the American public feels that the candidate is not of able-body, that will be reflected in the vote. However, given that this particular instance of John McCain being a vital elder in our nation's political arena, people are looking past the age and seeing his stance on the issues. His own mother is pushing 90something, I think he's got some years in him left.

However, in a more general sense, I believe the presidential term limit set in place after Franklin D. Roosevelt weeds out the chance of an infirmed candidate. Personally, I wouldn't mind a candidate of advanced years, for that ensures a few spins around the block, as it were. The ability to have lived a little and seen history and the chance to reflect upon it when weighing decisions is a quality all the more absent in presidential politics since the '80s.

It is the right of citizens to pursue happiness. If we just accept the fact that all candidates run because of ambition, we'll see the fundamental pursuit of happiness inherent in the campaigns and shrug it off. As I said, people simply won't vote for a person if they feel they are too old.

Again returning to McCain, it would be interesting to see the role of age if it comes down to McCain v. Obama. I believe Obama was accused of trying to start "an age war" by John Edwards. Lets see how serious a war that could become.

Maybe his mama is a bit calmer than her son. Given McCain's penchant to go into red-faced rages, I don't discount the possibility of the stresses of a presidency doing him in. I'm curious who his running mate would be.

I, too, believe in the wisdom and life experience that comes with age, but I also don't believe it takes until you're in your 70's to achieve said life experiences. There are mandatory retirement ages in many high-stress jobs (such as police, firefighters, pilots and air traffic controllers - from 55 to 60). There's a reason for that. As much as some of us over 50 would like it not to be so, we are not as sharp as we once were. Granted, a president surrounds him/herself with advisors and other experienced personnel, but if the Bush administration is anything to go by, they appoint their cronies and contemporaries to those positions. I think a person should have attained a fair amount of wisdom and life experiences by their 40's or 50's. I am most concerned with mental health and acuity in my president (I won't go there, I won't go there, I won't, I won't ). Mental acuity starts declining after age 40, and stress only accelerates that decline. Do we really want another Reagan situation? Well, maybe some do. I don't.

At least, we hope she is calmer than her son. And I would rather him feel something. Passion is a wonderful thing for a president to have, and if it moves him to fly into red-faced rages, all the more reason to vote for him because I see that as a means to vent stress and thereby secure a longer life. Maybe that's just me.

No, I don't think wisdom comes with age either. At seventeen, I like to believe it won't take me another forty years to secure some meaning of life. However, I would much prefer the elder politician to the young one because of what I'll call the identity crisis. More seasoned politicians have already had the time to make gaffes and blunders and at the point McCain is at in his career, he's an established figure with some household recognition. That's good for politics. True, it creates a sort of "Who's next?" mentality, but what about this nation's politics doesn't? And as established, one simply doesn't have to vote for that person if they feel they are too old. Ah, the beauty of democracy. So we don't need a law to say if someone's old enough. We can leave that up to our prejudices.

Should there be a maximum age limit for presidential candidates? Why or why not?
No, although a maximum age limit for judges would make more sense. Presidents are automatically limited in age. Take the candidate, add eight years, that's the max. Judges, they can keep blathering from the bench until the die, if they so choose.

The public has its own sense of how old is "too old", just like we have a sense of how young is "too young." We've never had a serious Presidential candidate close to the 35 year minimum....

If the "infirmities of age" are a major concern, then why not implement a policy where no woman going through or likely to soon go through menopause be permitted in public office? The impacts such physiological changes can have on a woman are substantial. Nor should we allow individuals who have spouses or children serving in the military into public office. Their loss could throw the politico into a tailspin.... Ditto for married folks, after all, a divorce can be truly devastating.

See how easy it is to come up with reasons to disqualify people because of things that might happen?

This is a novel idea for some, I'm sure, but how about trusting the public some, eh?

I wouldn't like to see an age limit. There is somethign to be said about experience, even if the experience comes from a walking stiff like McCain or Paul. Benjamin Franklin and Strom Thurmond are great examples of people who still had their brains about them at an advanced age.(Did I just link Franklin with Thurmond? )

I disagree- if we need an age limit of 35 to enter office- why not an age limit of 65, and you must turn 65 before your eigth year in office (considering you may win a second election)- I have no problem with limiting it by age for too old- I DO have a problem with the 35 age limit- we have not had a good president in this country since FDR, and if there is one thing that history has shown us- is that we have a plethora of old white men screwing up this country year after year.

Perhaps it is even time we made it so no one OVER 35 should be allowed to run for office- the old guys have had thier run- and they sucked, big time.

heck, I would even support a ban on over 35, white, male and an income over 50k a year.

Give someone else a chance at screwing up our country for a change.

If we are going to blame minorities and the poor for the problems in our country- maybe we should allow them to make some of the decisions.

Well that would be incredibly boring since I wouldn't be permitted to run.

Now that's interesting logic, I support minorities in office, I just don't think it'll happen in the next fifty years.

On-topic, I have to say that banning certain figures from office if not laid down in the Constitution [35 years] should be illegal. The framers intended for anyone to take office if they could, though history has shown the evolution of that virtue. Old white men have dominated the political landscape, but that is not justification to say we need to ban them from the process just because of age.

Ridiculous. Aside from being unconstitutional, someone who assumes younger is always better than older has lost their mind. Age begets wisdom and experience.

Job 12:12 "Is not wisdom found among the aged? Does not long life bring understanding?"


Job 32:7 "I thought, 'Age should speak; advanced years should teach wisdom.'"


If one can survive the rigorous schedule required to run an 18 month presidential campaign, including matching wits with one's younger opponent in speeches and debates, then one is strong enough to be president.

Ah, the usual sarcasm. Booooring. As cute and clever as you seem to think you are, none of those things are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a qualifier/disqualifier for the presidency. There is; however, a minimum age requirement stated quite clearly. If you think the question unworthy of debate, just say so and be done with it.

And, quick, please; I don't need to be preached to. Nowhere have I stated "younger is better", only that advanced age maybe should be considered. Sure, wisdom accumulates with age, or should (some people never learn), but do you really want an 80 year old president? I don't think I do.

Yes. And shouldn't this topic really have been entitled, "Is John McCain Too Old to be President?" We all know who we're talking about and it's not Ron Paul or Ralph Nader.

There is a reason why there is a minimum age limit for presidential candidates. There are just as many reasons why there should be a maximum age limit.

A man in his seventies isn't as alert, athletic or aware as a man in his twenties, thirties and forties. Sorry if that sounds politically incorrect and there are always exceptions to every rule, but as a rule this is pretty much a no-brainer.

Barack Obama has been singled out for special scrutiny based upon his race as has Hillary Clinton due to her gender. Why shouldn't McCain's age be fair game as well? The age of the next Commander-in-Chief is a perfectly legitimate area of inquiry.

McCain isn't sensitive about his age so why should we? We're not taking away his driver's license. We're asking him to take on the toughest job in the world.

McCain himself says: "I'm older than dirt and got more scars than Frankenstein." Besides his age, McCain has lasting physical problems from his time as a POW. The two broken arms and broken knee he sustained in his 1967 plane crash went largely untreated for five years and bother him still. Despite years of physical therapy, McCain cannot move his arms above his shoulders. He cannot pull on a sweater, wear a hat, or brush his hair without assistance. A scar on his left cheek is from a skin cancer removed in 2000. If elected, McCain will be the oldest president ever inaugurated. To prove his predisposition toward longevity, McCain mentions his 96-year-old mother frequently on the campaign trail. link

Anna Quindlen of NEWSWEEK broached the subject:

Here's my unscientific theory about the presidency: it ages a person in dog years. Each year in office is roughly equivalent to seven years in the life of an ordinary citizen. I base this on before-and-after photographs of the occupants of the Oval Office, who frequently look as though they've spent their time in captivity, being beaten with sticks. Which may help explain why 71-year-old John McCain, who actually has been beaten in captivity, may think that the fact that he would be the oldest person ever to enter the job is immaterial. In this, alas, he is mistaken.

There's been plenty of talk during primary season about gender and race; it's age that has become taboo. While there is a minimum age of 35 to be elected president, there's no maximum. Perhaps that's why it's more acceptable to suggest that a contender is callow than over the hill. Each time I'm described as middle-aged the 25-year-old still living deep inside me lets out a scream.

Please, please—don't feel the need to let me know that you're 82, swim every morning and finish the New York Times crossword, in ink, even on Saturday. I'm aware that there are women and men who perform brilliantly at arduous jobs far past the time the rest of us would be phoning it in or tuning it out. But the job McCain seeks is like no other, in its demands and its import. It's significant that while the old mandatory retirement age of 65 has been largely junked, there are still age limits for jobs like airline pilot or police officer, the kinds of jobs that require some of the same skills as the presidency—unwavering mental acuity and physical energy.

Political operatives say that his age makes McCain's choice of a running mate particularly critical. But if you enter the process stressing a hedge against mortality or incapacity, shouldn't that suggest something about suitability for the job in the first place? The senator's pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s. The impulse is understandable, the goal possible. But, looking at all the facts, and the actuarial tables, is it really sensible?
link 2

Swinging from the Right, one of the conservative movement's favorites, Thomas Sowell, weighed in as well:

Among the painful signs of our time are the shocked reactions to Chuck Norris' raising the question of whether Senator John McCain is too old to be president.

Have we reached the point where we have so many politically correct taboos that we can't even talk sense?

Does a man in his seventies have less energy for either physical or mental tasks than someone younger? Those of us who are in our seventies know darn well that we can't do everything we used to do, as well as we used to do it.

...a President of the United States has to be ready to take on any crisis that arises anywhere in the world, at any hour of the day or night.

And if he has to deal with it around the clock, then he just stays awake around the clock to deal with it.

It can be a killing job. You need only look at pictures of Abraham Lincoln when he took office and compare them with the pictures of him just a few years later, when he looked like he had aged at least ten years during the Civil War. link3

Forget the cliches about age bringing wisdom or just a number. If a person can be too young for a job they also can be too old and that includes being the President of the United States.

Should there be a maximum age limit for presidential candidates? Why or why not?

Woo. That's a loaded question! Hmmm...I would say don't judge on just age. If a candidate is older and is obviously having trouble remembering things or if he gets elected and begins to falter mentally, I would be a bit concerned. Then again, if Obama gets elected and all of a sudden he has a brain tumor or something that wreaks havoc with his memory, that too would be a concern. If we were to have a maximum age limit, sure enough some 99-year-old person wanting to run for President would yell discrimination.
So, no. There shouldn't be an age limit. But I would think no one would run for President at 99. I wouldn't! It would be my luck to keel over during the swearing-in. And seriously, though, if they are over a certain age, a real good physical might be in order.
Purrs,
Pookie

I think McCain's done a good thing by getting his mother out on the campaign trail with him. It shows that she's more ancient than he is, and that he has a prayer of seeing four to eight years through. Call me a bright ray of sunshine, but I think the rigors of the job will see the innaguration of his chosen VP should he clinch the election within two or three years.

That is a good point, and quite possible! I am sure McCain will choose a VP very, very carefully, for I am sure he's thought of this too.
Purrs,
Pookie

Actually, your personal info says you hail from the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia (where I attended college, and your state was too liberal way back then); and you are a liberal; so, somebody needs to preach to you, and soon, and I am just the man for the job.

As I said above, and it is the trump card: if you can handle the long, strenuous campaign, you have demonstrated your fitness. A campaign vets the candidates. If someone is obviously incapacitated, it will show.



NT, aside from the fact you are salivating at the prospect of having a brother (or at least a half-brother) in the White House and you therefore will grasp at anything to disqualify McCain, how would you draft such a statute or Const amendment and what age limit would you suggest?

Here is the problem with NOT having an age limit- Ronald Reagan- he had Alzhiemers while in office, and hid it from the US public until out of office.

Alzhiemers is hard to diagnose, along with dementia, and there is a very legit reason to deny office.

Dying in office- not a problem- having an age- deficit dementia in office- big problem.

I think 65 ought to be mandatory retirement for ALL lawmakers, period. Too many Ted Stevens, McCains, Strom Thurmonds, Jesse Helms, Bryd etc in office.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, living to be that old was too rare to even really worry about, and those that were that age, well, were pretty much ageless- in todays world, very different.

Are you telling me that the possibility of electing to the presidency the oldest man ever is not a legitimate area of concern?

Set aside for a moment your rabid Barack-bashing, think rationally for a second and you might see that one doesn't have to a supporter of Obama to suggest McCain's advancing age is a reasonable subject for debate.

The only certainty in life is that age catches up with all of us eventually. In the case of a man McCain's age, the odds are it will happen sooner rather than later. Each additional year increases the likelihood of physical infirmity and mental deterioration, not to mention death. A report last year by the Mayo Clinic found that one out of every 11 people it studied between the ages of 70 and 79 had some cognitive impairment, often a precursor to Alzheimer's disease.

McCain thinks he's the exception to the normal rules of aging because he has a 95-year-old mother who, by his account, is still sharp. What he neglects to mention is that he's already outlived his father and grandfather.

In any case, he's endured more wear and tear than the normal AARP member. As a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War, he broke both arms and a leg in a crash after his plane was shot down. He spent 5 1/2 years being tortured, beaten and half-starved as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He's had surgery twice for melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. All of those misfortunes exact a toll that may offset his hardy genes.

In other lines of work, everyone accepts that there is such a thing as too old. Some major corporations force chief executives and directors to step down at age 65 or so. Airline pilots have a mandatory limit of 60, which the Federal Aviation Administration has decided to raise to 65. Law firms often put partners out to pasture once they reach the golden years.

In those jobs, a fixed age limit makes less sense than it does for the one McCain wants. If a lawyer can no longer handle the work, after all, the firm can promptly cashier him or her. But the voters may never know if a president is growing befuddled by routine tasks -- or if a president, wearied by age, has simply lost the energy needed to perform well. And even if such facts became known, the public may not be able to force his removal.

That's not a big deal for a senator, who can't do much without 50 other people. But for the person occupying the most consequential office on Earth, it's an alarming prospect. John McCain has done a lot of things for his country. He could do one more service by acknowledging that the presidency is a job for a younger person. link

You can hate on Obama and snicker about his racial heritage to your little heart's delight. The facts remain the same: You can't reverse old and that is what McCain is.

Daffy, 'tis not sarcasm. I'm serious. The basic contentions of the "too old to be President" argument is


Its nothing more than an assessment of potential risks that are endemic to old age. My point is that codifying into law such an assessment is just as rational for "advanced age" as it is for any other status, be it marriage, parenthood, being a menopausal woman, compulsive skydiving, etc. Rather than setting into stone such a risky proposition (especially given the advancing state of medical knowledge), why not leave it up to the collective wisdom of the voters. If voters think Candidate X is too old, then X loses, just like Candidate Y will lose if the perception is of immaturity or bad table manners, or whatever the voters think is of importance.


Daffy, you may not have stated "younger is better", but you've just indicated that you don't want an 80 year old Prez, for no other reason than age. That is "younger is better" in a nutshell. It would be foolish to conclude that you think an infant would make a better Prez than an octogenerian, so we'll not be taking "younger is better" as an absolute formulation on your part.

Each voter, based on their own experiences, can make an assessment whether a specific candidate is too old. Is McCain "too old"? For some he is, for others, not. Some may be using the "too old" as a cover for their anti-male and/or anti-white bigotry, others may have had experience caring for elders lost in dementia in their 60's. In short, I believe it is best to leave it to each voter to decide, and no, there's nothing wrong with talking about it.

Then BD- you are for removing the under 35 age requirement? Because, after all, if it is one thing GW has shown us- that a 16 year old with down's syndrome would be a better candidate than we have in office today- smarter, more competant, and more able to react to the realities in the world today.

And I am being serious.

Nighttimer,

I am also worried about age when electing a President. McCain's age would be a problem if he showed signs of a man that was slow of wit. However, McCain does not seem like someone who is going to be driving through the front window of a Subway anytime soon. Include into that the fact that his mother is still alive. He probably has twenty more years of life left in him. How many of those years are cognitive remains to be seen. McCain's biggest obstacle is the "R" next to his name. George W. Bush has screwed John McCain more than any other person in recent memory. He screwed him in South Carolina with his lies and now his incompetence have made it impossible for McCain to win the Presidency. If I were John McCain, I would punch George W. Bush right in the mouth. Looking back, there would not have been a better choice for commander-in-chief after 9-11 than John McCain, but lies about a black baby stole the SC primary in 2000, the nomination, and eventually the Presidency.

I would be amenable to considering it, but since there aren't any viable candidates in view who are negatively impacted by the requirement, I would likely decline to advocate removing it simply because the cost involved in eliminating "a difference that makes no difference" isn't worth it. Now, if you happen to know where Ender Wiggins real world counterpart is lurking, we can talk.


another predictable, tiresome, and utterly off topic and pointless rant. Well, perhaps not pointless. Hopefully you got a little more of the bile (a common symptom of BDS) out of your system and will have better focus when working on your cars. How's the car thing going btw?

Actually- it is quite a good analogy, considering GW has all but destroyed the republican party. You compared Obama to Il duce or hitler in his rallies, and claimed he is reconstituting old discredited ideology- when, in fact, the election of obama does exactly the opposite- it slams the lid on conservative ideology- proof that conservative ideology since Reagan is a bust- there has not been even one good thing a single conservative has done in office since 1980. Attacks on our constitution were worse under conservative leaders than liberal, the economic policies were horrendous, the spending off the scale, the goverment grew faster than it ever did under liberal rule.

In fact, it is very reasonable to say, that we would have literally been better off with no president at all than the last 8 years of GW. He has not done one positive thing that helped this nation, in any way, shape or form. And even worse- his party rubber stamped his policies, and vice versa. No republican put the brakes on his spending, or his incompetance- to me, this is the worst sin of all of the Republican party- no one, including McCain was effective in stopping GWs rampage on American citizens. At least democrats don't rubber stamp thier prez's every idiocy. They have stood up to thier president and called him to the carpet when they were in power.

I was impressed with the Republican party that turned on Nixon. I was proud of Fred Thompson right up until he became a lobbyist- then he became no better than the man he repudiated in the Watergate hearings.

Why do you think long term republicans are turning thier backs on thier party BD? You think it is the media's doing? Do YOU think republicans are that stupid and gullible?

McCain represents more of the same, and the continued, and failed, policies of GW Bush.

McCain represents WHY we should have an age limit, he simply brings nothing new to the table. I do respect McCain to some degree, but I see his judgement has gotten no better over time in his defense of big, corrupt, businesses. He simply didn't learn his lesson from the Keating 5 scandal. he is still sending out letters defending big biz here and there (the NYT poorly written article, perhaps even smear piece, did have a bit if truth in it- he was rebuked by the FCC, for basically doing the same thing he did in the Keating 5- sending a letter protesting the treatment of a big corporation and it's corrupt leaders)

So maybe an old dog simply can't learn new tricks, and an old candidate is simply not capable of changing with the march of change that defines our entire world. We had no moral reason, no good reason, to enter Vietnam. It has been shown that by leaving them to thier own devices, they found thier own way. Hell, even China invaded them a short time after we left, declared victory, and went home.

Another hundred years of quagmire is exactly why we don't need an old leader, re-fighting a war we lost, because we weren't the good guys.

He would mostly be driven around by secret service agents, I think the sidewalks and front store businesses would be safe. Though I think he might pull something like this should he be elected.




It is a fact that Americans are living longer and that modern medicine has definitely helped to extend the lives of people. Many are choosing to work after they are 65 and there is no reason to conclude that he wouldn't be capable of governing for the next eight years.



McCain definitely got mugged in South Carolina, no doubt that. It speaks of his character and loyalty that he ended up hugging Bush and making nice with him inspite of the bad things the president and his campaign advisors did to him.

True. I can only pray to be half as active at his age because my own family is cursed with bad genes. He seems to have won some kind of genetic lottery. Perhaps because it was before my time, but weren't there rumors of Reagan's ill health before the general election and we put him in anyway? I know McCain's got a pretty bad temper, but it could serve to relieve the stresses that may otherwise have already done him in.