[PAX] Age limits for presidential qualifications

[Gaze]

Age always seem to come up when discussing someone's fitness for the presidency. For example, John McCain was late 60s/early 70s when he ran and they questioned his competence based on age alone. Hilary Clinton is being considered but if she runs, and is elected, she will be close to 70. Regardless of experience and career, age still matters to the public. On the other hand, many do not want to elect anyone too young because they think they have too little experience or maturity or not seasoned enough to take that kind of responsibility. So, although 35 is the minimum, someone that young is not likely to be considered. Does that mean, the age should be raised? I think President Clinton was 46 when he took office and President Obama 47. They were both considered young. If there isn't enough confidence in a 30-something candidate, then why not raise the age limit to 45? And if there is concern about physical fitness for the job at 70+, then why not set limits at 65? Of course, this brings up issues of ageism, but if we indirectly still use these reasons to not elect someone, then why not put them into law?

These are just questions for discussion, not necessarily personal opinions. Just curious about the variety of perspectives on this issue.

 

[the]

Age only comes up when the oppositiodoesnt like the opposing candidate and he happens to be old. Other than that it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[sprinkles]

I agree that age is usually irrelevant.

However there's also the concept of soft limits and hard limits.

You don't want the limits to be too close to your usual accepted range because you will always be hitting the stops. A soft limit allows a little leeway to make exceptions for edge cases.

It's kind of like steering a car - most of the time you're only turning so much and it's rare that you turn the wheel all the way to the stops but you have that option if you need to get out of a tight place, but you wouldn't have that option if the stops only accounted for your typical steering range.

 

[MindYourHead]

This was one of the best lines ever regarding age.
[video=youtube;LoPu1UIBkBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc[/video]

 

[Soulful]

This is the first time I've given thought to the idea of a minimum age requirement for presidency.
I think 35 seems rather arbitrary, and while on the whole I can see the logic/wisdom of raising the age requirement in this case above the usual standard (18), I can't help but wonder whether it's in fact arbitrary. Is it impossible that the U.S. may one day have a young adult who is indeed equipped for presidency at such an early time? Will the nation one day regret having what is in essence, although again not entirely unfounded, an ageist benchmark? After all, there are countless mature adults in politics who have less wisdom and integrity than a piece of rock. Age is far too often associated with wisdom, imo. Some people are wise, inteligent, and insightful enough at a young age that they don't need life expeirence to knock sense into them. Anyhow, this can definitely be argued, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I think it's a vital consideration for such a discussion. Great question.