The Constitution regarding President qualification has a lower age limit, should it also have an upper limit?

[Dante]

We will see. I bet Biden won’t debate.

Wrong again. Trump has been exhibiting serious issues. HE has even misnamed his own wife.

 

[Couchpotato]

Wrong again. Trump has been exhibiting serious issues. HE has even misnamed his own wife.

Ok. Well we will see. You sure are awful defensive.

 

[my2¢]

What was the reasoning when the age limit was enacted? Do you even know? Because that my dear friend is what you are arguing with.

And the term limit? I'm usually against term limits, but this one may be the exception that proves the rule. Unlike you, I'd research it before I started acting like I knew it all.

How am I arguing 'bout anything when I've not advocated any position on the question at hand?
See posts #7 and #10 above.

If I were to argue it would be directed towards the 2-term limit. That's the one I strongly oppose. My position wouldn't be based solely on denying people a choice, a position I previously respected. More importantly, the lame duck effect restricts the sitting President's ability to govern.

 

[Dante]

How am I arguing 'bout anything when I've not advocated any position on the question at hand?
See posts #7 and #10 above.

If I were to argue it would be directed towards the 2-term limit. That's the one I strongly oppose. My position wouldn't be based solely on denying people a choice, a position I previously respected. More importantly, the lame duck effect restricts the sitting President's ability to govern.

your argument(s): "An upper age limit makes as much sense as a lower limit. What makes no sense at all is the two-term limitation."

 

[Libby von H]

One of the qualifications to serve as President is that the person must be at least 35 years old. My question is whether the Constitution should deal with the opposite end of the age spectrum as well? For sake of example, disqualify any person who is age 77 or above at time of his/her inauguration.

again an illogicality and fallacy.

The people who think X is too old will vote for a change in the qualifications and not vote for that candidate
The people who think X is NOT too old will not vote for a change in qualification and vote for that candidate.

So all you are doing is staging a proxy vote for something people already do all the time, IT"S SILLY AS HELL

 

[my2¢]

So all you are doing is staging a proxy vote for something people already do all the time, IT"S SILLY AS HELL

I view it as far less "silly" than the present 2-term limitation we have on the presidency. The term limit now in place has far more effect on limiting not only the choice of the people but also the power of the people's choice. It should be the president's own determination when, if ever, he becomes a lame duck.

 

[BrokeLoser]

One of the qualifications to serve as President is that the person must be at least 35 years old. My question is whether the Constitution should deal with the opposite end of the age spectrum as well? For sake of example, disqualify any person who is age 77 or above at time of his/her inauguration.

Why?…Aren’t we headed to a point where Democrats will ‘identify’ as whatever age they pretend to be? Won’t they demand that their identified age be all that’s recognized?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No we don't have an age or term limits problem.

Here is an odd way I’d like things to work. We don't have an age or term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. Now bear with me here.

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any federally elected office. You want to raise money to run for office, do it on our own time - not the taxpayers dime.
.
.
.
.
There would be no need for age or term limits on Presidents or members of Congress if everyone started from scratch, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no “incumbent” advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection they would perform better. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW

 

[0311]

To remind the MAGA MGGOTS, Mr. Biden is only Three Years older than P01135809.

P01135809 continues to say he beat Obama in 2016, no he did not

He shown a picture of E. Jean Carroll and he said the Woman in the picture was his ex-wife Marla Maples.

P01135809 does not remember his aniversary.

He cannot walk down a ramp without assistance and needs two hands to drink from a water glass.

P01135809 said he was afraid that Mr. Biden would drag America in WII (Which ended in September 1945).

Stop using worn out talking point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

P01135809 does not remember his aniversary.

Well...

..... When you've had so many...

..... ..... I can see where it would be hard to keep them straight.

WW

 

[0311]

Well...

..... When you've had so many...

..... ..... I can see where it would be hard to keep them straight.

WW

I'm the one who remembers our anniversary, my wife usually gets the month right, but the date.

 

[my2¢]

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

I view that as an extreme restriction on the power of the presidency, which is half the reason I prefer an age limit over term limits. Restricting a President to a single term at a time automatically puts him in a lame duck position reducing his ability to be effective. But your thought won't be lost in my mind and I'm open to changing my view after some time to kick things around more.

 

[Libby von H]

One of the qualifications to serve as President is that the person must be at least 35 years old. My question is whether the Constitution should deal with the opposite end of the age spectrum as well? For sake of example, disqualify any person who is age 77 or above at time of his/her inauguration.

No, because that is just a way of pre-voting, where a minority gets to shut out the public will.
Obviously everyone that returned Dianne Feinstein KNEW. And don't say but others did. Because she was stupid and clueless decades ago.Better an old and wise than a young and foolish

 

[Libby von H]

I view that as an extreme restriction on the power of the presidency, which is half the reason I prefer an age limit over term limits. Restricting a President to a single term at a time automatically puts him in a lame duck position reducing his ability to be effective. But your thought won't be lost in my mind and I'm open to changing my view after some time to kick things around more.

Why would the vote on that be different from a vote for an actual office-holder. Whoever is convinced that you should not vote for someone over X will not vote for someone over X in a real election. This is the Hillary approach: Stop some people you don't like by stopping something abstract and seeminly unrelated.

 

[Libby von H]

I view it as far less "silly" than the present 2-term limitation we have on the presidency. The term limit now in place has far more effect on limiting not only the choice of the people but also the power of the people's choice. It should be the president's own determination when, if ever, he becomes a lame duck.

His own determination !!!!!!!

Then why do we have the 25th Amendment ?????

"the course to follow if for some reason the President becomes disabled to such a degree that he cannot fulfill his responsibilities. "

Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson 2016
by William Hazelgrove

"After President Woodrow Wilson suffered a paralyzing stroke in the fall of 1919, his wife, First Lady Edith Wilson, began to handle the day-to-day responsibilities of the Executive Office. Mrs. Wilson had had little formal education and had only been married to President Wilson for four years; yet, in the tenuous peace following the end of World War I, Mrs. Wilson dedicated herself to managing the office of the President, reading all correspondence intended for her bedridden husband. Though her Oval Office authority was acknowledged in Washington, D.C. circles at the time--one senator called her "the Presidentress who had fulfilled the dream of suffragettes by changing her title from First Lady to Acting First Man"--her legacy as "First Woman President" is now largely forgotten."

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the qualifications to serve as President is that the person must be at least 35 years old. My question is whether the Constitution should deal with the opposite end of the age spectrum as well? For sake of example, disqualify any person who is age 77 or above at time of his/her inauguration.

All you need is an amendment.

 

[Libby von H]

All you need is an amendment.

False , and shows no knowledge of history. We had a thoroughly incapacitated President at one of our gravest times and those laws did NOTHING

Edith Wilson ...After the President suffered a severe stroke, she pre-screened all matters of state, functionally running the Executive branch of government for the remainder of Wilson's second term.
Right now we have a stupid clueless doddering world embarassment for Pres and people are shielding him. !!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

False , and shows no knowledge of history.

The qualifications to hold office as President are set by the Constitution.
If you want to change those qualifications, you have to... change the constitution.

 

[my2¢]

After last week's debate I'm now sold that an upper age limit does make as much sense as a lower age limit. I always viewed it as making more sense than the 2-term limit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

After last week's debate I'm now sold that an upper age limit does make as much sense as a lower age limit. I always viewed it as making more sense than the 2-term limit.

The problem isn't age.

There is another problem that the masses (haven't realized) and those in power (will never allow to change).

WW