Jump to content

What do you think about age limits for our elected officials?


Road Runner

Recommended Posts

Not political in any way.  But I was just thinking that we have lower age limits for representatives, senators and president, but no upper age limit, which seems foolish to me.  I am in my 70's, and although I have not been diagnosed with any age-related dementia at this point, I can certainly tell that I am not as sharp as I was in my 30's, 40's, and 50's. 

I think lower age limits for people in public positions of power are necessary and good.  But an upper age limit also makes good sense.  The FAA has an age limit on pilots and air traffic controllers.  People in charge of our country and what happens in the world, which can affect the lives of billions of people, should be held to a standard at least as strict as those responsible for daily air traffic.     

  • Heart 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more for term limitations than age. How is it a president can't run more than twice, yet congress can be in for life? And are. To me this makes no sense.

Age restriction is not a bad idea, however physical and mental strength is more important. One could argue someone may be more competent at 70, than someone else at 60.

  • Heart 2
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

I'm more for term limitations than age. How is it a president can't run more than twice, yet congress can be in for life? And are. To me this makes no sense.

Age restriction is not a bad idea, however physical and mental strength is more important. One could argue someone may be more competent at 70, than someone else at 60.

We do need to get rid of career politicians.  We also need to ban them from simultaneously investing in markets they govern.  There is something wrong when someone enters upper middle class and becomes a multi-millionaire in their term. 

  • Heart 3
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

Age restriction is not a bad idea, however physical and mental strength is more important. One could argue someone may be more competent at 70, than someone else at 60.

Age restriction is just about drawing a line.  Of course there are exceptions where an older person may be more competent than a younger one, but generally, people DO decline with age.  Why not have an age limit that would reduce the chances of people being represented by someone of declining mental skills?  I think 70 seems reasonable. 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wilbur said:

We do need to get rid of career politicians.  We also need to ban them from simultaneously investing in markets they govern.  There is something wrong when someone enters upper middle class and becomes a multi-millionaire in their term. 

This. Go back 100 years and politicians worked a job, and went to DC part time. Now it's the inverse. Rarely are they home, and if they are they're not working in another profession. I'm assuming.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada, a judge could retire @70 yrs. and then there are other situations, where there's pay defined thereafter.

Judges Act (justice.gc.ca)  This the federal legislation.  All our provincial court judges across Canada, are subject to this federal legislation. Yes, you can see the salary ranges: public information.  (All this secrecy in private sector isn't necessarily great.)

70 is not a bad figure as a limit for politicians.

Yes, I did work for judges @72, 78 and even met one at 80. For latter, hmm....no. He was only part-time.

The 72, 75 had very high profiles in their respective areas of CAnadian law. One of them continued to also write updates for his book for major legal publishing in the area of Canadian banking law and litigation.  The other one led a national inquiry on tainted blood re AIDs patients which had very high media profile for months.

I believe appointments to Supreme Court of CAnada for new judge could begin for judge to start in their 60's.

 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

There is something wrong when someone enters upper middle class and becomes a multi-millionaire in their term. 

You noticed that too.   

Yes there should be an age limit.   Good luck getting that constitutional amendment passed any time soon.   How many of the old self serving politicians would end their gravy train?

 

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

BTW, on my last physical checkup, my doctor questioned me about the state of my mental alertness and acuity.  :o

I'm pretty sure he doesn't ask those same questions of a thirty something.   

IIRC I was asked something like this in 2019, at 45.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Yes there should be an age limit.   Good luck getting that constitutional amendment passed any time soon.   How many of the old self serving politicians would end their gravy train?

I thought about that too.  The answer is the grandfather clause.  The age limit would only apply to those who are elected after the restrictions go into effect.  :)

  • Heart 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

I can certainly tell that I am not as sharp as I was in my 30's, 40's, and 50's. 

Maybe not as sharp in certain ways always, but compensatory qualities are extremely valuable.  More considered approach, more thoughtful, greater experience bank to draw from, etc.  We are ageist enough as it is, and better candidate is better regardless of age.  That said, a lower bar to removal might need to be placed if someone is showing abrupt neurological decline.  Young folks have more energy, and a bit more venom and impulsive at the same time, oftentimes.  Kind of a toss-up, concerns either way.

 

28 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

I'm more for term limitations

Hell yeah, entrenched corruption blows, out on their asses after a set and finite time limit.

 

24 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

We also need to ban them from simultaneously investing in markets they govern.  There is something wrong when someone enters upper middle class and becomes a multi-millionaire in their term. 

Hell yeah, part 2.  You get in office, you put in a mutual fund at best, no cherry picking industries that you regulate.  After you are done, get the hell out.

 

23 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

This is the age I have in mind.

Until you are 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

BTW, on my last physical checkup, my doctor questioned me about the state of my mental alertness and acuity.  :o

I'm pretty sure he doesn't ask those same questions of a thirty something.   

Yeah...  cognitive questions /testing are part of the Medicare "wellness' checkup.   Now... don't ask me the age that starts... I don't remember. :scratchhead:

  • Heart 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget the details, but I'm sure I read that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer's during his second term.  No one in the public seemed aware of this at the time.  The comedians made jokes about him napping a lot, but dementia was never discussed that I remember.

  • Heart 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

I forget the details, but I'm sure I read that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer's during his second term.  No one in the public seemed aware of this at the time.  The comedians made jokes about him napping a lot, but dementia was never discussed that I remember.

If I recall correctly, it wasn't even mentioned until he had left office. 

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Old No. 7 said:

Financial oversight especially investing and lobbying. There needs to be accountability for when a schmuck with an upper middle class background is suddenly worth millions. 

Insider trading, kick backs, bribes, campaign donations...  nothing to see here.  :whistle:

  • Heart 1
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

My old age brian isn't what it used to be.

I just tell WoBG...   My brain is full.     If I learn something new... something old gets overwritten and it's gone forever.   (Exactly like the hard drive for my security cameras) 

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not age specific, I am 71 and wouldn't go back to the daily grind for anything! This is the time for yourself. Get out, travel, enjoy life - you're not getting any younger. I look at politicians at retiirement age running for office that will obligate them for the next 4 to 6 years, and think...why?

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

I just tell WoBG...   My brain is full.     If I learn something new... something old gets overwritten and it's gone forever.   (Exactly like the hard drive for my security cameras) 

Actually, I am constantly amazed at the human brain.  Sometimes, I will be reflecting on an event from my childhood or early adulthood, and I will remember something completely different that I hadn't thought of for maybe 60 years or more.  Stuff seems to goes into memory and stays there.  It's the accessing of the data that seems to be the problem.  For me, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Road Runner said:

Actually, I am constantly amazed at the human brain.  Sometimes, I will be reflecting on an event from my childhood or early adulthood, and I will remember something completely different that I hadn't thought of for maybe 60 years or more.  Stuff seems to goes into memory and stays there.  It's the accessing of the data that seems to be the problem.  For me, anyway.

When my father had dementia, I had some interesting times with him and just let him run with it.  I asked him what the address of the house was so I could place what time frame he was in.  It was incredibly sad but at the same time, I felt I got to know him as a kid. 

  • Hugs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Road Runner said:

I forget the details, but I'm sure I read that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer's during his second term.  No one in the public seemed aware of this at the time.  The comedians made jokes about him napping a lot, but dementia was never discussed that I remember.

Early stages, he probably was still mentally fit.  But it wouldn't be the first time a first lady was in charge for a while.

They do include mental assessment as part of the presidents' yearly physical.  Probably should do that during the primaries.

 

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Rather than age or condition maybe we should have just one rule.  Anyone who wants the job should be disqualified.

One of the big problems we have today is that no one in their right mind wants to hold public office, so we end up having to choose between an idiot and an insane person.  :(   

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Road Runner said:

BTW, on my last physical checkup, my doctor questioned me about the state of my mental alertness and acuity.  :o

I'm pretty sure he doesn't ask those same questions of a thirty something.   

My doctor uses the same test year after year. They give you things to remember, and I remember them from long term memory, not so much short term. 

  • Hugs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Road Runner said:

BTW, on my last physical checkup, my doctor questioned me about the state of my mental alertness and acuity.  :o

I'm pretty sure he doesn't ask those same questions of a thirty something.   

I'm sorry to hear that. The nurse handled my Medicare Wellness interview prior to seeing the doctor. Not to brag, but seems like she focused more on my sex life. 

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Longjohn said:

While we are posting in this non-political thread how about making an IQ test mandatory for voters? We have people voting with the IQ of a can of tuna, no wonder we have the people in office that we do.

Without dumb voters, we would have no one left to blame.  :) 

  • Heart 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 12string said:

agreed.

I know some people who regress in their 50's, some as sharp as a tack in their 90s.

But few mature enough to be president before 35.  Not too many with the experience needed even at 35.

35 seems too young IMO. But when that was written, it was a different time. When I was 35, I "knew it all" :D kidding of course.  Difficult to put a range on POTUS, but 40-70 seems ok. Purely opinionated though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bikeman564™ said:

How is it a president can't run more than twice, yet congress can be in for life? And are. To me this makes no sense.

The difference is in the power in the position and power invested in the person.

The president is the head of the Executive Branch; the entire Executive Branch of the federal government; one of the three branches of government.  Within the Executive Branch he can, to considerable extent, act unilaterally.  That is potentially a considerable amount of power, and if such a person were in the office for more than two terms the power will grow as the person gradually expands the boundaries of his office and the influence of his person.   

A senator (today) is only one of a 100.  Granted, a senator with 30 - 40 years in his seat can gain power, particularly by sitting long term on important committees.  However, a senator still has to act in concert with a number of senators to effect (or squash) legislation.  A senator alone rarely accomplishes anything of significance without the cooperation of other senators.

The founders' intent of a six year term for senators was to provide longevity, experience, and wisdom :dontknow: to the Legislative Branch of the government.  The Senate is supposedly the body into which legislation is poured in order to cool any passions associated with the bills generated in the House (according to a supposed conversation between Washington and Jefferson).  This is part of the reason why the Senate handles affairs associated with treaties and consent for executive branch appointments.

A representative of the House (today) is one of 435, which makes it even more difficult to wield power although a house member of longevity can build alliances and accrue 'debts' owed to make that power considerable too.  The founding fathers' intent was to have the House be closely accountable to the people.  Hence, the two year terms to keep the representative (supposedly) more directly answerable to the people for their records, and the 'responsibility of the purse' being delegated to the House by the Constitution since the government's money comes through taxes and tariffs (which are paid by the people).

The founders debated term limits for senators and representatives, but declined to include them in the Constitution.  In short, they felt that worthy legislators would be re-elected by the voters because the legislator deserved to be re-elected.  They also felt that the voters would turn out incompetent and/or ineffective legislators, and elect more capable ones in their place.

Basically, the founders decided the people (voters) would select their representatives and get what the people deserved - either good or bad.

Hence, they believed the people would provide the term limits through casting votes, and that formalized term limits were more of a detriment than a benefit to the effective representation of the people.

Federal judges have life tenure to separate them from the politics of any particular time, to allow them to focus on the law itself, and to elevate them above the emotions and manias that sometimes (often?) are the driving force behind writing and passing legislation by the Legislative Branch and executive actions by a president.  One might think that offers a judge considerable power, but recall a judge must be nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate - a potentially difficult process, as we know.  In addition, judges continue to serve based on their 'good behavior', so a judge whose behavior or decisions that are especially egregious will be removed by impeachment.  

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't count on folks to vote out "bad" politicians, I guess you need term limits and age restrictions to do it.  Not a great democracy, in that case, but the churn would at least prevent many bad (and good) politicians from sticking around.

Of course, if we're tweaking things with term limits and age restrictions, might as well fix voting access rules and gerrymandering, plus the filibuster and delaying/obstructing judicial appointments.  And might as well...well, change a lot of stuff.

My feeling is that the next decade will determine if things are "good enough" or we'll have tipped into "too late" territory.  Messing too much with things now (likely impossible anyway) will probably not have any impact other than to make things messier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for age limits for politicians.  I do not like the set-in-their-ways leaders in either major party now.

I also think they don't care as much about some of the things that will affect the country 20 years or more in the future, if it doesn't match what's in-vogue in their party now because they won't be living to be blamed for it.

I know I don't think as quickly or remember as clearly in my 70's as I did when I was younger.

Am I wiser?  I think that pretty much leveled off by age 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...