Instead of a minimum age of 35 to be able to stand for election for president, should there not be a maximum age instead?

The premise of your question is that older people are inherently closed minded and frozen in their ways, and that younger people are inherently more open minded.

I think that the premise makes a bad assumption. I have known (and still do) plenty of people in their 30s and 40s that are zombie-like in their world outlook and who would be frozen into irrational political positions based on that rigidity.

Of course we are talking in generalities here, but to address your main point – comparative youth does not guarantee wisdom and more than age does,

Whether or not there should be such an amendment, what do you think the chances are that a bunch of geriatric legislators would back such a measure?

How about “as well” like 75.

I’d settle for term limits on congressmen.

Since this change would require an amendment to the Constitution we need a rule that will be relevant for decades/centuries. Therefore, I propose the top age be limited to any candidate with a PLE, Probable Life Expectancy* of 25 years or greater based upon the candidate’s critical health factors at the time they first announce their intention to run. (1)

* Probably life expectancy is determined using the best available actuarial data and the candidate’s personal health factors including: height, weight, personal habits, smoking, exercise, alcohol and drug use.

Until the election all candidates shall agree to random drug screening, (urine test) at the behest of any opposing candidate. The cost of administering and performing said test shall be defined as one quarter of the annual salary of the POTUS and totally borne by the party calling for the test. (2)

Justification and clarification.
1) The total cost to society of a US presidential election has been estimated to be anywhere from $5 Billion to $30 Billion (2012 dollars.) The POTUS’s health is a significant portion of the country’s GDP and must be considered in economic terms.
2) Certain jobs or positions are of such importance and require such clear thinking and quick reaction times that they already have the requirement of random drug or alcohol testing as a condition of employment. These positions include:Truck drivers, ambulance crews, some engineers, surgeons, etc. Certainly the position of POTUS is critical to the well being of the country and no less important than driving an 18-wheeler, hauling a 20 ton load of cabbage down I-95. The demonstration of sobriety during the run up to the election is the best indicator we have of continued sobriety while serving.

(Bernie Sanders would pass)

Having a minimum age makes sense. 35 is the accepted age for the start of adulthood.
I resent the notion that older people are less capable of governing. Lincoln was 56 when he was shot and Washington was 57 when first elected. By your scheme, neither would have been eligible for the presidency. Nor would Churchill have been ineligible to become prime minister at age 66. I suggest that you do some rethinking.

I imagine a reason for setting the minimum age for presidency at 35 was that by then a person should have become self-sufficient, demonstrating maturity of thought; it takes about that long for those who are able to get a handle on the when, where and who they are in life. I think this requirement remains valid. However, an arbitrary age limit would not protect the presidency from the “effect[s] of mental rigidity, close-mindedness” and senility for many does not set in before their nineties.

Candidates for the Executive Branch of Government should receive a full battery of psychological interviews and tests before being allow to run for office. Of course, governments at all levels would fiercely fight against its being incorporated into the United States’ Constitution or State Constitutions.

45 is pretty damn young, no, and most people are not mentally declining at age 45.
Ideally I think the age of wisdom and maturity is at it’s peak in ones 50’s.
My 40’s were the single most growth producing decade of my life, I was launching in many ways and expanding mentally, emotionally and spiritually. I changed my beliefs on many things during that decade.

Ones 40’s are the onset of full self actualization for many.
I think the ideal age for a president is in their late 40’s to 60’s, with the 50’s being prime.

I think the most idealistic and least corrupt current runner in the race is the oldest. Your paradigm is fail.

Back when they picked the minimum age, 35 was near the normal life expectancy. Life Expectancy 1850–2000 . A 35 year old would have been one of the most experienced people walking on the top side of the grass.
The equivalent today would be an 80 year old.

45?! WTH?

The design of the government was never supposed to be an advantage for the career politician. The idea was that you would have a normal career in business or whatever, then bring your experience and maturity to government service.
Your plan would completely turn this on its head.

Phew, our Prime Minister just makes the cut!

That is quite ridiculous, for reasons that have already been pointed out.

@LuckyGuy

Simply saying the average life expectancy was 35 fails to take into account the effect that high numbers of infant and early childhood mortality has on the average. However, once an individual survives into adulthood the likelihood of living into old age greatly increases. Even surviving those first few extremely vulnerable years greatly makes a difference.

On that chart you liked to notice how dramatically the line moves when you select “age 5”, “age 20”, etc, rather than the default “at birth”?

Is there one in Germany?

@Darth_Agreed. But note that the data only went back to 1850 and then it was a little more than 36. They founded the country ~80 years before that! It’s a pretty safe bet that anyone reaching the ripe old age of 35 was older than 90% of the population.

I’m 38.. LOL

Maybe… the Roman Catholic Church has an age limit for cardinals to vote on the next pope. Also Canada had a 70 age limit for senators. Also universities have a 67 or 65 age limit for profs.

I would raise the minimum first. At least 40. And if there were a top, no less than 80.

@Seek I don’t want term limits for my representatives, I lik them! I want term limits for your representative.

I figured the benefits would outweigh the inconvenience. There are more Voldemorts than Bernies out there.

@LuckyGuy ” It’s a pretty safe bet that anyone reaching the ripe old age of 35 was older than 90% of the population.”

Whatever makes you so certain of that? Once an individual survives to adulthood then the chances of them living into old age greatly increase. This is true in pretty much every species. The average person didn’t die by 40 once making it through the vulnerability of childhood. To say that someone who was 35 was older than 90% of the population is, quite frankly, asinine, even in 1787.

The major time period where the age of 35 will place you solidly in the top third of the general population is the late 14th century, after the Plague. As one of my friends likes to say, after the Plage Europe was run by grad students. Kids were undernourished and died of the bacterial infection. Older people were more frail and in poorer health overall and died. If you were 25 and healthy, you might live even if you caught Plague.

By the mid-18th century, when the US was founded, lifespans went back to normal. If you make it to seven, you were just as likely as not to make it to 60–65.

Also, given modern life expectancy these days, if one can expect to live to be 80, 90 or 100, it makes sense that full psychological maturity is not attained until middle age, mid-40’s on average with continued expansion into the next several decades.

Haha, may as well give the gig to the iCarly kids, Spencer could be head of security.

No. You can’t guarantee old age. If you live to 50, there is a 12.5% chance you’ll die before age 65, and only an overall 50/50 chance of living to 74.6 years old.

I don’t remember, but did Reagan actually fall asleep giving a speech? He was a entertaining leader and he only got funnier with age. To the OP question. It is up
To the voters if someone is too old.

It is funny to see each age group react to the age question.
Mine differs using the basis of age, also.
My second thought was that – regardless of age, a stupid politician has no age. Stupid is stupid.
Inept is ageless also.
Frightening that people actually Chose to put them in that elected position, isn’t it?

At the time the Constitution was written, the President was expected to not only be mature, but nearing the end of his life and not looking to make a living out of being the president.

Thus, we can guess that the founding fathers never intended a former President to become a First Husband.

To follow the intent of the original founding fathers, we’d need to raise the eligibility age to 65, or the legal retirement age. 2 terms takes you age 73, a nice age for an elder statesman.

Does anyone imagine that Obama will be happy playing the role of elder statesman for the next 30–40 years?

@ibstubro Some believe we should allow third terms as long as there is a break after the second term. I tend to agree.

@ibstubro No, but he will make a great Supreme Court Justice.

@ibstubro raising the age of eligibility to sixty-something or so is a good idea that likely will never happen.

I guess I’d leave it up to voters if someone is too old.

Hey @Darth_Algar I missed your (asinine) comment until just now and need to respond.
You know I’m an engineer and don’t use numbers lightly.

Here’s my sense check. What is the Average life expectancy in the US? Age 77 (several sources but all are around that.) Now let’s look at Census figures for 2010. Total population 281 Million. How many are over age 77? (Not available, but over age 75 is: 16.3 million .
16.3/281 = 5.8% of the population is over 75. Therefore:
A 75 year old person walking around today older than 94% of the population. And that is with a population that is aging and with families that are smaller than colonial times!

I’m sticking with my numbers until you show me data. Because, as every engineer will tell you, without data all you have is an opinion.

Here is an article that claims that adult life expectancy has not changed all that much. The most significant change was the increase of the chances of someone getting past childhood. For example, until fairly recently, the infant mortality rate was extremely high. The increase in life expectancy since colonial times for someone who made it to age 21 is only a few years.

@LostInParadise Thanks! But I still can’t figure out the number from that.
A person today (2010), at the age of life expectancy is older than 94% of the population.
And this is with smaller families (and using an age that is actually younger than life expectancy so maybe the real number is 96%.)
The “feeling” is that 50% of the population should be under the avg. life expectancy and 50% should be over. That is false. Our avg LE is 77. but 50% of the population is not above that age. Only about 5% is.

We need a breakdown of population by age in the late 1700s. This is an interesting math problem, no?