
People Discuss If US Presidents Should Be Under 65
"Yes, if there is a young age limit, then an older one is justified as well."
"I'd support age limits for all politicians. Asking someone to live a while in the world they create is a fair ask, in my opinion."
"Politicians collecting social security have no business in Congress, the White House, etc."
"Why are we letting folks who can die from a strong breeze knocking them over run the country?"
"I think Americans need to ask themselves: Why are American politicians generally so old? Most of the world doesn't have maximum age limits either, yet older people in politics are much rarer elsewhere. Why?"
"Mitch McConnell has been a Kentucky senator since 1985; he's had power longer than I've been alive."
"Add in 20-year limits on Supreme Court and Federal judge appointments. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous. As far as an age limit on legislators, I agree for the most part, but Sanders makes me question it. He seems to grasp the moment better than many Democrats in Congress who are 30 years his junior."
"There is a minimum, so a maximum makes sense. 35-70 seems reasonable. A 70-year-old running for election would finish the term at 74, maybe 75, depending on the time of their birthday, of course. Just for discussion's sake."
"Considering Congress limits my profession to age 65, I'd love for that to be an age cap for ALL federal elected officials as well."
"Without some sort of test for competency, it doesn't matter where you set the age limit."
"Actual fossils running our government."
"We've been stuck in a generational loop with presidents."
"The US Constitution technically has a provision to remove a mentally incompetent president from office. It's just never been used before for a whole host of reasons. An age limit would at least help."
"There is a minimum because the founders wanted life experience to be a factor. There's enough time for somebody to learn and understand how things work when it comes to people and management. I'm OK with the way things are. I like freedom, but I also appreciate having some structure within it. Let's say we eliminate the 35-year-old minimum, which would now allow a 10-year-old to be elected to the presidency. Probably not a smart move, but hopefully society isn't that silly."
"I know plenty of 70-year-olds that I think would be perfectly competent to be president, and plenty of 40-year-olds I wouldn't trust to watch paint dry."
"Maybe tie it in with a driver's test. If they can't be mentally or physically competent enough to make decisions while in a car, I don't want them behind the wheel of a country either."
"I think 75 by election day is fair. I work in healthcare, and people over 65 should have an opportunity to be represented because they have a drastically different set of needs than people who are 55. "
"I would probably say 65 when their term starts or 70 when it ends. Doing the job right is extremely stressful, and very few older folks can sustain that. I would also put caps on Congress: 75 years old at the end of their term."
"100%. We need presidents who still have enough life left to actually face the consequences of their choices in office. That way they'll have incentive to do good."
"Nope. The world does not need more techbro billionaires in politics. CEOs in general make awful politicians."
"Use cognitive tests for metrics that matter. Do not use age solely because it's correlated with older age. Person A can be sharp as a tack at 85, person B can develop early-onset dementia at 63."
"The House, Senate, Supreme Court, and president should all top out at 50, not because of any issues of mental competency. It's because you should be forced to live in the world you built after you leave office. So many octogenarian freaks are fine with passing sociopathic legislation because they're expecting to croak in the next three or four years. If it's guaranteed that you actually have to suffer the fallout of your actions for 20 or 30 years, then you might be more likely to pass legislation that won't kill all of us in 10."
"No, because not all old people are senile."
"Yes, and I would also pay a ham sandwich or five to see a Constitutional amendment limiting all federally elected officials to either two consecutive 4-year terms or a single 6-year term to ensure they aren't constantly campaigning."
"I find it shocking how many people in the US government are over 70, at least at the higher level. I actually supported Biden for his polices, but not as a person because of his age. He was in his late 70s to mid-80s. WTF is he doing, trying to run for president again? Yeah, for sure, an age limit. I'd rather have someone who's mentally and physically alert and active enough to do the job. 65 is the retirement age, which should be the cutoff. Or like 67 or 68. Though older people can be mentally alert and aware, it's clear at that age that it goes down."
"Absolutely. There is no reason we retire pilots flying commercially, and even in the military. The president is the Commander-in-Chief. 65 years old tops."
"I'm not really in favor of limits like this, but also, it takes an unhinged person to, at 65, say 'I'd like to run for office,' let alone for POTUS."
"No. Different people age at different rates, so it doesn't make sense to disallow someone in their mid-60s who is still sharp from being president. Also, we the people are responsible for voting for decent candidates. It's our fault that so many of us are dumbass Trump supporters."
"You can't be the president if you're under 35. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. I sure don't. A 30-year window of eligibility makes pretty good sense to me. The person leading this country should be in their prime, and not someone whose mental faculties are potentially compromised by their advanced age."
What do you think of a presidential age limit of 65? Comment below.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
mRNA mayhem
Good morning!🙋🏼♀️ I'm Nicole Fallert. BRB, checking out Instagram's new features. RFK Jr. is canceling mRNA vaccine development Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed his agency will be cutting funding to mRNA development, the vaccine technology used in the two most common COVID-19 vaccines licensed in the U.S. What we're talking about: Messenger RNA works by instructing the body's immune system to recognize the virus and creating fighting antibodies to attack it. These vaccines contain only a fraction of the virus, so unlike some vaccines, they can't give people the disease they're trying to prevent or trigger allergies. Fort Stewart shooting is latest US military base attack in recent years An Army sergeant shot and wounded five fellow soldiers Wednesday at the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, the latest in a growing number of violent, and sometimes deadly, incidents at U.S. military bases over the years. Officials did not provide further details on what led to the incident, but Army Brig. Gen. John Lubas said the suspect, Quornelius Radford, 28, used a personal handgun, not a military firearm. Fellow soldiers responded swiftly, tackling him to the ground. Other military bases have also experienced mass shootings in recent years. More news to know now What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here. Trump's tariffs take effect Thursday President Donald Trump's higher tariff rates of 10% to 50% on dozens of trading partners kicked in Thursday, testing his strategy for shrinking U.S. trade deficits without massive disruptions to global supply chains, higher inflation and stiff retaliation from trading partners. U.S. Customs and Border Protection began collecting the higher tariffs at 12:01 a.m. ET after weeks of suspense over Trump's final tariff rates and frantic negotiations with major trading partners that sought to lower them. Meanwhile, costs from Trump's tariff war are mounting for a wide swath of companies, including bellwethers Caterpillar, Marriott, Molson Coors and Yum Brands. USA TODAY breaks down the tariffs. Texas Democrats evacuate amid bomb threat Some of the Texas Democrats who fled their state to try to block Republicans' redistricting efforts were evacuated from an Illinois hotel where they were staying over a bomb threat. Texas House Rep. John Bucy III, one of the Democrats at the hotel, told USA TODAY that many legislators were still asleep when the alarm went off in the morning and that the group gathered outside. He said it took about two hours before everything was cleared up and they were allowed to safely reenter. Today's talkers Why are people tossing sex toys onto the court at WNBA games? The latest toss of a sex toy came during Tuesday night's game between the Indiana Fever and the Los Angeles Sparks at Arena in L.A. With two minutes remaining in the second quarter, the neon green toy landed on the court in the lane near Fever forward Sophie Cunningham, who earlier in the week went on social media to plead with fans not to throw things on the floor and posted another reaction after the game. Sparks guard Kelsey Plum took it upon herself to get rid of it by kicking it into the stands. It's the third such incident in the past two weeks where a sex toy was thrown on the court of a WNBA game — and the league is issuing warnings and ejecting fans. Photo of the day: Meet Plesionectes longicollum Paleontology researchers in Europe have identified Plesionectes longicollum, a new species of ancient marine reptile that existed nearly 183 million years ago. What did the newly discovered Jurassic sea monster eat? Nicole Fallert is a newsletter writer at USA TODAY, sign up for the email here. Want to send Nicole a note? Shoot her an email at NFallert@


New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump to meet Putin ‘in coming days' with venue to be announced later, Kremlin says
A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump has been agreed, a Kremlin official said Thursday, and it could possibly take place next week at a venue that has been decided 'in principle.' 'At the suggestion of the American side, it has been agreed in principle to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov told reporters. Next week is the target date for a summit, Ushakov said, while noting that such events take time to organize and no date is confirmed. The possible venue will be announced 'a little later,' he said. Advertisement 3 Russian President Vladimir Putin (C-L) and US President Donald Trump (C-R) hold a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka on June 28, 2019. SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images He also played down the possibility of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky joining the summit meeting to discuss ending Russia's 3-year-old invasion of its neighbor, which the White House said Trump is ready to consider. 'We propose, first of all, to focus on preparing a bilateral meeting with Trump, and we consider it most important that this meeting be successful and productive,' Ushakov said. Advertisement A meeting between Putin and Trump would be their first since the Republican president returned to office this year. It would be a significant milestone in the war, though there's no promise such a meeting would lead to the end of the fighting, since Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on their demands. Western officials have repeatedly accused Putin of stalling for time in peace negotiations to allow Russian forces time to capture more Ukrainian land. 3 Trump and Putin arrive for a meeting in Helsinki on July 16, 2018. AFP via Getty Images Advertisement Putin has in the past offered no concessions and will only accept a settlement on his terms. It was not clear whether Trump's Friday deadline for the Kremlin to stop the killing in Ukraine still stood. Support for continuing the fight wanes in Ukraine A new Gallup poll published Thursday found that Ukrainians are increasingly eager for a settlement that ends the fight against Russia's invasion. Advertisement The enthusiasm for a negotiated deal is a sharp reversal from 2022 — the year the war began — when Gallup found that about three-quarters of Ukrainians wanted to keep fighting until victory. Now only about one-quarter hold that view, with support for continuing the war declining steadily across all regions and demographic groups. The findings were based on samples of 1,000 or more respondents ages 15 and older living in Ukraine. Some territories under entrenched Russian control, representing about 10% of the population, were excluded from surveys conducted after 2022 due to lack of access. Since the start of the full-scale war, Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. 3 A meeting between Putin and Trump would be their first since the Republican president returned to office this year. Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images On the 620-mile front line snaking from northeast to southeast Ukraine, where tens of thousands of troops on both sides have died, Russia's bigger army is slowly capturing more land. The poll came out on the eve of US President Donald Trump's Friday deadline for Russia to stop the killing or face heavy economic sanctions. Advertisement In the new Gallup survey, conducted in early July, about 7 in 10 Ukrainians say their country should seek to negotiate a settlement as soon as possible. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last month renewed his offer to meet with Russia's Vladimir Putin, but his overture was rebuffed as Russia sticks to its demands, and the sides remain far apart. Most Ukrainians do not expect a lasting peace anytime soon, the poll found. Only about one-quarter say it's 'very' or 'somewhat' likely that active fighting will end within the next 12 months, while about 7 in 10 think it's 'somewhat' or 'very' unlikely that active fighting will be over in the next year.


The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Law scholars say Gov. Abbott's bid to oust Rep. Wu is unprecedented, lacks legal basis
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Legal scholars called Gov. Greg Abbott's petition to the Texas Supreme Court, which seeks to remove Rep. Gene Wu, 'unprecedented and said it lacks a legal basis.' One of the experts said he's doubtful it will succeed, but could envision the court siding with the Governor. Quorum breaking has a long history in Texas; however, Gov. Greg Abbott's Tuesday petition to the state's Supreme Court is unprecedented and lacks evidence, legal experts tell KXAN. Abbott's counsel filed a 'petition for writ of quo warranto' on Tuesday, which is a request for the Texas Supreme Court (SCOTX) to remove a public officer of the state from their position. Specifically, the petition accuses State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, of allegedly taking or soliciting a bribe to break quorum, and that Wu abandoned his office by leaving the state for an 'indefinite period.' Other Democrats who broke quorum were not named in the petition. However, it may serve as a pilot for future petitions. Quinn Yeargain, a Michigan State University law professor specializing in states' constitutional law, said the petition lacks sufficient evidence and asks SCOTX to take the governor's argument as 'common sense.' 'Abbott's basic argument is that by purposely leaving the state to prevent the House from having a quorum and being able to conduct business, Rep. Wu … abandoned his office, and therefore it is vacant, and he should be entitled to call a special election to fill the vacancy,' Yeargain said. Does Texas Governor Greg Abbott have the power to vacate Texas House seats? Seth Barrett Tillman, a U.S. Constitutional law professor, also talked with KXAN about the filing. President Donald Trump's legal team cited Tillman's work in their case before the U.S. Supreme Court over Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the ballot in 2024. 'The filing is professional. It's put together well,' Tillman said. 'The governor has some arguments, but ultimately, I'm not convinced.' Are legislators public officials? Experts say SCOTX rulings say no Yeargain explained to KXAN that elected state legislators aren't public officers in the way Abbott's filing imagines they are. Abbott's counsel cites a 1893 case, which Yeargain said was irrelevant to the petition. 'The argument that Abbott makes in his filing, is that a state legislator is 'clearly, obviously a public official or a public officer,'' he said. 'It's actually not clear, and they're just trying to bluff their way through it.' The Texas Government Code has been used for more than 100 years, and as recently as 1999, to argue the opposite of what Abbott's filing argues, Yeargain added. '[Abbott] is not able to cite any relevant case that involved anything similar in the past … and there's a mountain of case law that suggests that that is not an appropriate use of this kind of legal threat,' Yeargain said. 'We're talking about executive branch officials in this kind of situation.' Tillman also said he's not sure quorum breaking is an example of what state law defines as 'official influence.' 'Official influence is the governor calling up a commissioner and saying, 'Get this guy the relief he wants.' I don't know that [quorum breaking] is official influence,' he said. The petition argues that Wu and other quorum breakers have left Texas for an indefinite amount of time, and thus vacated their seats. This doesn't hold up with what the quorum breakers have said, which is that they do intend to return to their primary residences in their districts. Texas Democrats leave the state to block vote on redrawn House map backed by Trump 'Usually, when we talk about abandoning office, we want them to have an intent of not coming back; not having an intent for a specific date to come back, isn't really the same thing,' Tillman explained. 'I don't see any evidence that [Wu] doesn't plan to return. He just wants to return in his own good time under conditions that he's satisfied with. What the governor says is, 'I want you to return and debate whether you like those conditions or not.'' What could happen? Speculating in 'unprecedented times' The filing's bribery allegation, which Tillman called 'a fairly weak claim,' cites article 16, section 41 of the Texas Constitution. 'Given the gravity of what the governor is asking the court to do, which is, in effect, to override an election … against his party and political opponents, I think the [Texas] Supreme Court is going to want a very close adherence to the language in that constitutional provision,' he said. Both scholars said they used narrow and originalist perspectives while analyzing Abbott's petition. They each said that the current SCOTX justices, many of whom were Abbott appointees, lean towards these interpretations in their rulings. 'The Texas Supreme Court is really serious about history. It's very interested in historical practice and consistency with that practice,' Yeargain said. 'The fact that Abbott isn't able to point to … any historical analog in the slightest is jarring. It is stunning, because the scope of what he's asking for is massive.' Yeargain declined to speculate on how SCOTX might rule on the petition in these 'unprecedented times.' Tillman said he could imagine a majority of the justices siding with Abbott, but remains doubtful of that outcome. 'The Constitution of Texas doesn't say that because the governor has the power to convene the legislature, any particular member of the legislature, including Rep. Wu, has a specific duty to show up that day and on time,' Tillman said, 'to the extent that there are provisions that govern punishments, like the $500-a-day provision, that might very well be interpreted as the limit of what could be done against these people.' If SCOTX issues a writ in this case, it would open a 'can of worms' and make the state's highest court into 'ordinary run of the mill partisan politics,' Yeargain added. The petition, according to Yeargain's reading, is Abbott asking the court to engage in judicial activism. '[Abbott's] asking for something that the court doesn't have the power to do. He's asking for something that has never been done before, and he can't point to any example of it having been done before,' Yeargain said. 'He's asking the court to step into a political dispute and to arrive at his desired political outcome. That's entirely inappropriate and something that in almost any other context, he would condemn.' 'What he's saying is, 'if they're going to frustrate my power, they should lose their office.' But that's essentially a political question. That's one that should be left to the voters,' Tillman said. Without consequences, couldn't another quorum break happen? A talking point by some around the current quorum break is that if legal action isn't taken at some point, won't this just happen again? It's a fair point, since our state legislature has seen a few other quorum breaks in its recent past. Tillman argued that super majority quorum rules inherently carry the risk of quorum breaking by the minority party. Texas Legislature: What is a quorum? 'That's the risk you take when you build a provision like that in,' he said. 'Some people might even go further and say it's not just a risk, that's the intent, to make sure that anything that passes has super majority support. Or, at least if it doesn't have super majority support, it doesn't cross the red lines of the dissenting party.' Quorum breaking isn't just a Texas thing, Yeargain noted. In 2019, Oregon Senate Republicans staged a six-week walkout over an environmental bill. In response, Oregonians successfully voted to amend the state's constitution to ban lawmakers with a certain number of absences from running for office again. In 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld that rule, barring a third of those Republicans from reelection runs. Texas lawmakers could send such an amendment to the ballot for voters to approve, if they wanted a constitutional obstacle in the future. Yeargain also had other ideas for the Texas House to consider, such as redefining quorum in its rules or increasing existing penalties for breaking quorum. In fact, the House added fines for quorum breaking to its rules in 2023 to discourage the action. It also has the power to issue warrants for absent representatives. And, as both scholars point out, the Texas Constitution already allows the state's Legislative branch to remove members on a two-thirds vote. The Texas House nearly underwent such a vote in 2023 against former House Republican Rep. Bryan Slayton; he resigned prior to the vote. 'There's no tradition in the United States … that if a member's conduct is egregious enough, any federal court, even of the same state or the same district, could just remove that member, even if he commits a crime, right? That's not how we do it,' Tillman said. 'God forbid we should expand that and allow the courts all over the United States to decide for themselves what sort of conduct constitutes expulsion. The very fact there's already several remedies provided by law in Texas, in my mind, raises serious doubts.'