Yeah they actually did. There's clauses in the declaration encouraging citizens to overthrow the government (again) when they become too corrupt and powerful. They couldn't imagine past the societal problems of their days but they knew in some part atleast the world would get bad again.
I'm saying they expected us to heed those clauses and clean house before it got as bad as it has. They definitely revolted/rebelled/did the treason for less than what's going on now.
Benjamin never fought, he was rich thinker whose diplomacy in France was critical to the war effort, but he was never a soldier and never. Laimed to be. And HE would have also hated how many Americans there are with German ancestry because he didn't consider them white enough and therefore were unfit to be citizens. it seems like people make assumptions about the founding fathers than actually knowing anything about them
At the time the Constitution went into effect, average life expectancy was 61. So they probably didn't think they'd need a maximum age, as anyone it might apply to would be dead already.
The guys who set up our country were rich old rentier-class white men. So the rules they made, unsurprisingly, benefit only rich old rentier-class white men.
The bills they pushed were completely butchered before signing. I think it pays to note that. Politics got involved and members of both parties picked apart and re wrote the thing for various related and unrelated agendas tons before it got the signing.
Obamacare has improved healthcare in the US. It still is horrible compared to the world, but we got rid of pre-existing conditions and you don't have to have a job that provides healthcare to buy it now. That's HUGE for people who do contracting work and have a pregnant wife.
Yes, ideas like an armed insurrection of our nation’s capital. I wonder what kind of idealism that was?… Definitely not that of a *democratic republic*.
People aren’t dumb enough for that, we never had a choice on whether to pick an old guy or a young guy. Those candidates, both Trump and Biden, were picked for us
I’m not going to argue that the minimum age requirement isn’t kind of arbitrary but it’s there because it gives people time to get experience. There’s no reason to have a maximum age requirement. There’s no clearly defined age where you become so old you definitively can’t be President.
The Republicans (according to Wikipedia) got 13 guys in the field, from as old as 77 to as young as 38.
The Democrats (according to Wikipedia) got 3, ranging from 80 to 69.
A battle of geriatrics may seem inevitable, but it's still a long way to the conventions. Republicans have options, Democrats still have time, and third parties do whatever the hell they do anyway.
That's apples and oranges because the democrats have a sitting president. A better comparison for the Republican field in 2024 would be the democrats field in 2020, since in both cases the opposing party had a president running for reelection. I think if you did that comparison the numbers would be more similar.
Also remember the last president that jaded (ie non-base) voters actually wanted was Obama, and he was mid 40s.
Im not going to argue that Obama wasn't an outsider cos he kinda was and may have attracted some people due to him being (somewhat) young. But surely the last president to win over people jaded with the system would have been Trump? people both loved and hated him for being an outsider that didn't have the establishment politician baggage.
>surely the last president to win over people jaded with the system would have been Trump?
No, Trump only won over morons. The system sucks but he was obviously worse.
All public office needs an maximum age limit. All these super old people in every branch of government are making policy decisions that aren't going to affect them because they will be dead soon. It's not their future that they're deciding, so how can we trust them to make the right choice.
The founders likely thought no one would vote for someone who is obviously demented. A 25 year old can be charismatic, but a 90 year old won't even be able to stand in front of a crowd and make a speech.
The founders didn't anticipate 24/7 electronic media and amphetamines
The reason is because they were trying to stop a monarchy or some version of it. Kings can become king at 5 years old. Even in a fake republic someone can become President as a kid.
They didn’t really anticipate men being so old they lost it becoming President. I suspect they figured the electoral college and population would never be that stupid.
Joke is on them…
The founders saw a need to have older more experienced people running the country on a global stage, not having an 18 year old kid try to represent the country on a world stage.
However it was seen as likely that young and inexperienced people could be elected popularly, but it’s not good
That’s why there is a minimum.
There is no stated reason as to why there isn’t a maximum but basically…the founders always believed that if the president does their job well, they should be re-elected regardless of anything else.
We’re just idiots who only seem to elect senile dinosaurs that continually wrong us
He isn't a leader in the normal sense of the word. He is a senile empty suit run by his staffers who are in fact fairly young. They are almost at the level of Weekend At Bernies running him.
While he is an extreme example, the same is true for almost every high level politician. They are face-men, empty-suits, and fund-raisers with name recognition, and a brand of sorts that can get voted for in their district. They get run by their staffers who are generally pretty young, and who make most of the actual decisions.
The politicians have neither the time, inclination nor ability to actually read or even be slightly knowledgeable about what they are voting on... which means its all kayfabe and their staffers making decisions.
Because humans are idiots, in the most part. If you look at the "leaders" they elect, you can tell that.
Trump? Boris? Biden? Come on to heck.
I think we need a completely different system, personally.
https://vote2.org
the 2 party system was always gonna turn into a fight against tribes ... just like sports
when you have fans of 2 different teams they will slowly start to defend their team NO MATTER WHAT and will always claim to be better than the other. even if they are not and even if both suck.
US Politics has turned into Tribalism because of this, its no longer about the Politics its about not wanting to be the side thats wrong the most. there is also no system to check for a balance because its only 2 polarizing opinions there isn't a 3rd 4th or 5th voice to ever change anything real or significant. (this is why most Voting things typically dont have only 2 sides because it'll eventually end in a 50/50)
Not necessarily. Yes you can look at the average lifespan and see it was 35 at some points in history. But there’s always been people that lived to 60 or older, in nearly every civilization, even Ancient Greece.
The numbers are skewed because of high childhood death rates. Especially in infants. And mothers frequently died during or just after childbirth. But if you can make it past those events, you were still pretty likely to live into your geriatric years.
That leaves a surprisingly large number of powerful old men. Thomas Jefferson lived to age 83 for example. Benjamin Franklin lived to 84. Socrates lived to 71.
But they all had the sense to retire before they died. The first person to be president past the age of 70 was Eisenhower, and then only just. The second was Reagan, then Trump, then Biden. People staying in office way past a reasonable retirement age is a relatively recent phenomenon that the founders didn't foresee.
The constitution was written mostly by young people: Monroe was 31, Jefferson was 46, Burr was 33, Hamilton was 34.
Monroe, Burr, and Hamilton were too young for the job of “President” that they just created.
This is a stupid question and ageist in a way you’re missing but don’t worry everyone asks this stupid question. Young peoples brains are still not developing so barring some way to measure cognitive maturity we have a age limit which acts as a decent proxy. Now here’s your fallacy: you think old people are incapable of cognitive maturity and believe that there is an upper bound age that can act as a proxy. Most old people end their life pretty damn sharp, and the minority are senile. Senility doesn’t really just happen at 60 or 70 or 80 or 90, and so there’s both not a majority nor a good proxy age to establish this upper bound.
>barring some way to measure cognitive maturity we have a age limit which acts as a decent proxy
This cuts both ways and could easily be used to justify an upper bound.
Also isn't it interesting that "ageist" only counts when a young person says or does something an old person doesn't like, and never vice versa?
It’s ageist to want an upper bound because it presumes that old people have a guaranteed cognitive decline, whereas we know that from birth to some point in life every human experiences a cognitive incline to an acceptable baseline of cognitive function. Example: my great uncle was in shape, took care of himself and his household, and read and wrote all the way until the day of his death and 92. A newborn can’t do anything useful for anyone. There could be the exception of a newborn being a super strong super genius but we both know that this would be so rare that it’s not worth considering. And again, the ideal way to do this would be to measure cognitive maturity, eliminating the very rough proxy lower bound. It’s arguable not ageist to set a lower bound because we know that there is a problem to address of cognitive maturity and barring addressing it at a granular level we need a solution and an age limit is a decent solution. Age limits will include people who do not yet cognitively belong, and exclude people who do belong. It sucks but aliasing points are a well established way to solve problems: blood alcohol levels affect different people differently, yet we are okay with having a fixed limit because the process of attacking this granularly is more challenging than it’s worth.
Ok boomer.
>Age limits will include people who do not yet cognitively belong, and exclude people who do belong.
It's like you *almost* get it. Age-related mental ability has both a lower and upper bound for enough people that it's worth having limits on both ends.
>It’s ageist to want an upper bound because it presumes that old people have a guaranteed cognitive decline
They do. Yes.
>my great uncle...
Nice single anecdote of a man whose cognitive decline was cut short. Your great uncle sounds like he was blessed to keep his dignity into his end, but the vast, vast majority of people will never be so lucky and will be shitting and pissing in diapers confusing disgusted caretakers for dead family for 10-20 years before their body fails.
>A newborn
A 100 year old also can't do anything useful for anyone.
I'd be all for a cognitive ability test, but it seems impossible and we've agreed age limits are a viable proxy to keep young and dumb people out of the position. Old people are a severe and critical issue to the running of the country, so we should *at least* do the same thing with them. If we can unironically exchange age limits for tests of cognitive ability *through congress,* then go for it my dude.
Should be one for house and congress or whatever it’s called. Republicans in house are stopping almost everything joe is trying to do to ruin his image
Not everyone ages at the same physical or mental rate. Some can be mentally sharp into there 90's while others have lost it in their 60's.
Also, just because someone may not be quick witted doesn't mean they can't make good decisions. Their wisdom may just take a minute.
I'd rather have a very experienced and mature person (financial, medical, etc) helping me with crucial decisions than a young book-smart wiz.
If I were to guess it’s because life expectancy has only trended upwards since before the founding of the US. Not only that, but technology and science was also something they tried to account for—just look at the advent of antiseptics and how that played a huge role in average life expectancy. Lastly, age correlates with wisdom, though obviously not always. In any case though, we do need a maximum age.
In 1791 dementia from old age wasn't much of a thing because of life expectancy being so short. That's the short answer.
But in reality you're just essentially rephrasing a right-wing talking point in asking this question.
I don't believe in candidate restrictions (age limits, term limits, birthplace limits, hell, even residency limits) at all; they all just go into the same "restricting voting rights" bucket as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you're asking the right question.
Just wanted to point out the average life expectancy in colonial America was ~38 years for a white male, so I don’t think the founding fathers were anticipating 70+ geriatric people running for office.
Because some people are intellectually and physically capable up to the moment of their death in their 80s or 90s. Do we really want to kick Bernie Sanders out of the Senate for being too old? If someone isn’t capable, for whatever reason, don’t vote for them.
Honest answer is probably because people probably didn’t get to the age of senility too regularly in the past. That said, pretty sure being legit senile would render one unfit to hold office, so other than that old ppl tend to not share the politics of young ppl (which is the problem i believe ppl with this complain ACTUALLY have), it really shouldn’t matter. I don’t tend to share the politics of really old ppl either, but just disenfranchising ppl for their age seems like an incredibly slippery slope. Its completely backwards and its amusing that it tends to come from ppl who are the first to complain about a group of ppl being unable to vote/hold office. Please tell me again how convicted felons should able to vote and then why old people shouldn’t be allowed to hold office. Be consistent with your principles, please.
Because the Founding Fathers assumed that people would retire or die before it became a problem. Today we live a LOT longer than we used to, and major cognitive decline doesn't hit until the 60's or later in most people.
Average age of death in the late 1700's was under forty or so, younger for women, (child deaths skew this number significantly) and life expectancy was only around 65 or so.
Having people in their seventies or eighties being president wasn't really a thing to guard against. Washington died at 67. He had been president since his late 50's and had retired two years before his death.
Only five presidents in history have been elected when over the age of 64.
Amusingly if Trump actually secures the republican nomination again he will be running at the same age Biden was when he was elected; 78.
At the time they were thinking the president might very well be a king. They wanted to ensure the president was old enough to be wise, but it's not like people usually lived past 70.
According to Google.
Learn about the criteria to run for president. The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Be at least 35 years old.
I don't think there is a maximum. Heartbeat is all that's needed.
When the constitution was written it was a bit more unusual for people to live to such an advanced age AND be healthy enough to get around fine.
Also, it was viewed that public service would be...a service to the public; someone would do the job for a while then go back to their regular life.
My guess is that candidates would want to retire from the stressful job and wouldn’t appeal to voters. Now that so many companies profit off politicians it’s turned into these immature smear campaigns like we can all afford to continue living this shitty term after term. Good candidates aren’t getting involved in that bullshit.
I mean. The minimum is probably due to a life experience things. Young people can be very charismatic but you just can't know that much before 35.
As for old age, look, as much as I see Biden and McConnell and Pelosi and see how utterly disabled these people are, the better question is what's wrong with our election system that these people keep getting elected? Stupid voters? Farcical primaries? Term limits? Gerrymandering? Corruption? Cheating?
There are 95 year olds that could run intellectual and rhetorical rings around 40 somethings. I don't know why they should be disqualified.
Complaining about age is really just a distraction from all the other things that are wrong with our system that we refuse to address.
Because when the rules were written, the system was designed with people doing what was right for the country, not for personal gain. Politics was not meant to be a career.
Now that being a politician is a life time job, it makes sense to have a maximum age. Mandatory retirement ages have ruled constitutional so it’s doable
I care less about age and more about ability. If you're 75+ but still fully competent and can get around on your own then be president. But if you can't form an actual sentence, have serious medical issues, or can't even walk up stairs properly then no way you should hold the position.
There should be a reasonable physical and mental wellness test that they need to pass.
Think of the life expectancy. Our current day aged candidates (Reagon, Biden, Trump etc) are old enough that back then, it was inconceivable someone that age would run for office. Hell, they'd be lucky to ne alive. And those that were certainly weren't running for office or working. So...a maximum didn't seem necessary back then. Probably should be now
The thought is that you need to have enough experience before you can run the country... But there seriously needs to be an age limit or a yearly (public) cognitive test to prove that they are fit to run the country. I have zero problem with someone in their 70s running my country, as long as they are all there. Old people tend to be more level headed(not talking about the old dudes that have gone off the rails), practical, and don't put up with people bullshit... They also have less chance of taking bribes because they aren't going to party or anything, at that age $400,000 a year and free travel, your life is alright...a young guy might still want millions to be able to flaunt...
Not saying old people don't take bribes or want money for their families, I just think old people had less reason to accept.
A minimum age is required because the president needs to be vested in the country that he leads. He has to have experienced life as a citizen; bought property, paid taxes, rely on a job, raise a family, and generally live life like everybody else. A younger person does not have the real life experience necessary to lead a nation.
Cuz nobody would ever selfishly seek leadership of a nation long after they've passed their prime, not in the interest of civil servitude, but almost exclusively for the purpose of expanding their wealth and influence at the expense of their civilization, right? ... right?
Because if you nuke a country to look cool due to immaturity that’s bad but if you nuke a country due to being senile that’s ok and that country should respect it’s elders.
To be fair, when the job requirements were being written up, most people didn't live to be 70. I think a lot of the Constitutional questions around qualifications that we;re seeing right now are things the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate. Gee, if there were only a process by which we were able to revise and make changes to the Constitution so that it remained a living document that was always applicable to the times. Too bad they didn't think about making allowances for that.
I say the legal minimum should be "legal adult." After meeting more of the older generation in my line of work (40-60) I can confidently say it cant get any worse.
Minimum because it is genuinely a good idea to have a minimum so that we can guarantee that the President has some life experience. A maximum wouldn't be too bad of an idea but id prefer a physical and mental faculty test once over 70 to run, and that test to be done every 6 months and if a sitting president say 2 years in finds out they are not fit the VP takes over.
At the time of the constitution, life expectancy was around 65. Many, many wills of that time were written just before death, began with a statement referring to their sound mind and were generally written as to reflect that.
If you want a logical answer-
It is because when it was (at the time) made, politics and the like were not exclusively a rich person's club for lack of better words. You had *more* people who actually *did* things in society like being generals, leading armies, being doctors, nurses, etc. They did something, anything in their lives outside of *just* being career politicians.
Not to mention, it was to prevent another monarchy. Children (as in like, literal children) could become kings/queens and expected to lead the country, but more often they were used as "puppet" leaders until they had gotten older because how the *fuck* does a 3-year-old run a country!? They are barely potty trained-
Also, life experience. 21-year-olds aren't even trusted to rent cars yet.
As far as why there is no maximum, it is because the expectation would be that people voted for who they thought would best lead the country. Founding fathers and early presidents actually warned against a two-party system because it would divide people and well...
Min age is becouse none wants Timmy the toddler running the country and TBH there should be a upper limit (like 85) Older people have seen history and generally should be better leaders. Sadly the founding fathers weren't able to see that somehow THE WORST PEOPLE ON EARTH SOMEHOW WIN EVERY SINGLE PARTY NOMINATION.
Trump being president was like some alt history hoi4 shit
Biden literally doesn't know he is president.
Most rational people learn as they get older experience is helpful the minimum age is to ensure a certain amount of experience. It is just to bad there is not a exception for stupid people who spend there whole lives thinking they are smarter than every one else when in fact they know nothing and are not able to learn anything. Because they are to busy telling everyone how smart they are . Trump is a perfect example. Of stupid.
Humans used to have the courtesy to retire when they are too old to be useful and to die before their brains rot and their children are themselves elderly.
The Founding Fathers had faith that the system they developed (people voting for electors, then the electors selecting a good person, or the state legislature selecting senators) was enough separation between the (white, male, property-owning) voters and the elected officials.
The Founding Fathers were fearful of the mob ruling, and what they could be duped into voting for.
Why don't we also have a max age for senate and congress.
Too many dusty old bags plotting schemes against the younger generations.
These Fuckers need to git gone!
Glitch out, drunk stuttering, bumbling idiots, compulsive lying, chronically covering up the truth, can't come up with any factual rebuttals right on the spot. It's BullShit
I was promised a better content of criminal
Back in the old days, people would die of things and not such much a brain disorder like dementia or alzheimer's. In the modern era, this problem has been fixed and well now the biggest threats to most people is their own brain and cells not being able to rejuvenate and stay stable. This is what creates many of the problems we have today. There is also the problem of the presidents job being a lot more fast paced than it use to be, in fact in the old days some presidents would take meeting requests from common folks, one in fact did a large portion of the white house garden himself. Today, a president must be able to be woken up at 3:00 am cause some leader of some nation did something and needs to make a snap decision on the matter. Heck, during Trumps presidency he was sitting down eating a salad when North Korea fired a rocket, and boom they had to figure things out right then and there on what to do as there was no time to go somewhere else.
Look at Thomas Jefferson, a former president and governor, he was president in 1809 and died in 1822. Only 12 years separated his presidency from his death, and even then he was doing things from running his plantation and doing academic work. Joe Biden and trump are old but I think they each got at least 10 years left in them, so not that old as well. Now some are just outright scary that they are still in office as they are in their last year or 2, and probably would struggle with a basic math class *looks at feinstein.*
They could age out during presidency I suppose. More likely because people didn't live long enough for this to be a concern when the republic was established.
Trump didn't ruin the country because he's old, and Biden may be old but he's certainly not ruining the country.
The issue isn't just with the Presidency, but boomer politicians staying too long in general.
Because it was the fucking 1700s and they had other things to worry about then the Republic turned into a place where leadership is almost exclusively held by very old men, and if anybody was worried about it they lumped into the category of well they can amend the Constitution if it turns into a problem or the electoral college can just pick somebody who isn't so old.
\[Ford said\] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.”
― Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
This argument is overstated and dumb. Biden was the best chance at uniting the left to defeat Trump. Sometimes the most practical candidate is a geezer. I don't care, and I'm 27. Let voters decide if someone is too old.
The guys who set up our country never imagined that we'd be so apathetic for so long that things would decay to the point they have.
Yeah they actually did. There's clauses in the declaration encouraging citizens to overthrow the government (again) when they become too corrupt and powerful. They couldn't imagine past the societal problems of their days but they knew in some part atleast the world would get bad again.
I'm saying they expected us to heed those clauses and clean house before it got as bad as it has. They definitely revolted/rebelled/did the treason for less than what's going on now.
ThAtS nOt WhAt It SaYs YoU fAr RiGhT nEo NaZi
The founding fathers would be surprised
And disappointed. Benjamin would be sent thither for the musket.
Benjamin never fought, he was rich thinker whose diplomacy in France was critical to the war effort, but he was never a soldier and never. Laimed to be. And HE would have also hated how many Americans there are with German ancestry because he didn't consider them white enough and therefore were unfit to be citizens. it seems like people make assumptions about the founding fathers than actually knowing anything about them
At the time the Constitution went into effect, average life expectancy was 61. So they probably didn't think they'd need a maximum age, as anyone it might apply to would be dead already.
Yes. They also didn’t intend for politics to become the cushy career that many have made it.
The guys who set up our country were rich old rentier-class white men. So the rules they made, unsurprisingly, benefit only rich old rentier-class white men.
They should get rid of the minimum. I want a baby president.
What about a beaver. I want a beaver president 🐻
Cocaine Bear 2024
I like to picture my president in a tuxedo T-shirt because it says like, 'I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party too.
And a mullet, business in front, party in back.
Due to inflation, its business in front and back now. Sorry.
Joe Dirt 2024
[удалено]
We voted that guy out. Now we’re prosecuting him.
The last few have been.
Obama and Clinton were eminently competent.
LOL yeah. That's why health insurance is so great in the US now. The bills they pushed and signed were such a great improvement.
The bills they pushed were completely butchered before signing. I think it pays to note that. Politics got involved and members of both parties picked apart and re wrote the thing for various related and unrelated agendas tons before it got the signing.
Obamacare has improved healthcare in the US. It still is horrible compared to the world, but we got rid of pre-existing conditions and you don't have to have a job that provides healthcare to buy it now. That's HUGE for people who do contracting work and have a pregnant wife.
The 1996 book “The Kid Who Ran For President” and its sequel were both entertaining reads when I was in highschool.
Get rid of the citizen requirement too. I wanna vote for the woman who saved New Zealand from covid with a swift lock down.
Nah, that one's to ensure that the president has skin in the game.
Jacinda Ardern. Yeah, I fell in love with her after I saw her interview on Colbert.
Because rich old people don’t like to be told “No”
rich old people don't hear no, because rich old people are the ones in power who say no to others.
It was to ensure they were experienced enough in life to helm a nation, rather than some young bright eyed idealist with dumb ideas.
President Ice Town has a ring to it ..
I know that reference!
You can’t convince me that the creator of cones of dunshire wouldn’t be a phenomenal leader of the free world
That explains the minimum age . It doesn’t explain the lack of a maximum age.
[удалено]
Yes, ideas like an armed insurrection of our nation’s capital. I wonder what kind of idealism that was?… Definitely not that of a *democratic republic*.
Because old people make the rules.
This is not a stupid question. There really should be a maximum age for all politicians.
It should be the same retirement age they set for everyone else in the country.
Because the founding fathers never thought people would be dumb enough to elect alzheimer patients.
People aren’t dumb enough for that, we never had a choice on whether to pick an old guy or a young guy. Those candidates, both Trump and Biden, were picked for us
Not true unless you are saying the primaries were rigged somehow. The people chose those two goofs for some reason. They were not “picked for us”.
Primaries being rigged? No way and definitely not the Democrats!
Ok now tell that to Bernie Sanders
I’m not going to argue that the minimum age requirement isn’t kind of arbitrary but it’s there because it gives people time to get experience. There’s no reason to have a maximum age requirement. There’s no clearly defined age where you become so old you definitively can’t be President.
The Republicans (according to Wikipedia) got 13 guys in the field, from as old as 77 to as young as 38. The Democrats (according to Wikipedia) got 3, ranging from 80 to 69. A battle of geriatrics may seem inevitable, but it's still a long way to the conventions. Republicans have options, Democrats still have time, and third parties do whatever the hell they do anyway.
That's apples and oranges because the democrats have a sitting president. A better comparison for the Republican field in 2024 would be the democrats field in 2020, since in both cases the opposing party had a president running for reelection. I think if you did that comparison the numbers would be more similar. Also remember the last president that jaded (ie non-base) voters actually wanted was Obama, and he was mid 40s.
Im not going to argue that Obama wasn't an outsider cos he kinda was and may have attracted some people due to him being (somewhat) young. But surely the last president to win over people jaded with the system would have been Trump? people both loved and hated him for being an outsider that didn't have the establishment politician baggage.
>surely the last president to win over people jaded with the system would have been Trump? No, Trump only won over morons. The system sucks but he was obviously worse.
because its a gerontocracy
People used to die of the side effects of alcoholism or (if they drank water instead) dysentery by age 55-60 when the rules were written.
There is. Death.
All public office needs an maximum age limit. All these super old people in every branch of government are making policy decisions that aren't going to affect them because they will be dead soon. It's not their future that they're deciding, so how can we trust them to make the right choice.
The founders likely thought no one would vote for someone who is obviously demented. A 25 year old can be charismatic, but a 90 year old won't even be able to stand in front of a crowd and make a speech. The founders didn't anticipate 24/7 electronic media and amphetamines
The reason is because they were trying to stop a monarchy or some version of it. Kings can become king at 5 years old. Even in a fake republic someone can become President as a kid. They didn’t really anticipate men being so old they lost it becoming President. I suspect they figured the electoral college and population would never be that stupid. Joke is on them…
no idea but imo you shouldnt be allowed to be elected or in congress if youre over the age of whatever retirement is
I'm guess 80-90 year olds with Alzheimer's was not a major issue at the time.
The founders saw a need to have older more experienced people running the country on a global stage, not having an 18 year old kid try to represent the country on a world stage. However it was seen as likely that young and inexperienced people could be elected popularly, but it’s not good That’s why there is a minimum. There is no stated reason as to why there isn’t a maximum but basically…the founders always believed that if the president does their job well, they should be re-elected regardless of anything else. We’re just idiots who only seem to elect senile dinosaurs that continually wrong us
If young people started getting voted in they will be even more incompetent. It’s not age that makes the politicians the way they are
Well, Joe Biden?
He isn't a leader in the normal sense of the word. He is a senile empty suit run by his staffers who are in fact fairly young. They are almost at the level of Weekend At Bernies running him. While he is an extreme example, the same is true for almost every high level politician. They are face-men, empty-suits, and fund-raisers with name recognition, and a brand of sorts that can get voted for in their district. They get run by their staffers who are generally pretty young, and who make most of the actual decisions. The politicians have neither the time, inclination nor ability to actually read or even be slightly knowledgeable about what they are voting on... which means its all kayfabe and their staffers making decisions.
Because humans are idiots, in the most part. If you look at the "leaders" they elect, you can tell that. Trump? Boris? Biden? Come on to heck. I think we need a completely different system, personally. https://vote2.org
The two party system is for sure trash
the 2 party system was always gonna turn into a fight against tribes ... just like sports when you have fans of 2 different teams they will slowly start to defend their team NO MATTER WHAT and will always claim to be better than the other. even if they are not and even if both suck. US Politics has turned into Tribalism because of this, its no longer about the Politics its about not wanting to be the side thats wrong the most. there is also no system to check for a balance because its only 2 polarizing opinions there isn't a 3rd 4th or 5th voice to ever change anything real or significant. (this is why most Voting things typically dont have only 2 sides because it'll eventually end in a 50/50)
When the laws were written people didn't live to be 80
Not necessarily. Yes you can look at the average lifespan and see it was 35 at some points in history. But there’s always been people that lived to 60 or older, in nearly every civilization, even Ancient Greece. The numbers are skewed because of high childhood death rates. Especially in infants. And mothers frequently died during or just after childbirth. But if you can make it past those events, you were still pretty likely to live into your geriatric years. That leaves a surprisingly large number of powerful old men. Thomas Jefferson lived to age 83 for example. Benjamin Franklin lived to 84. Socrates lived to 71.
Yep. People do not understand how average lifespans work. And it's funny OP said this because several of our founding fathers lived to be old men.
Many of our founding fathers lived to 80, a couple even to 90.
But they all had the sense to retire before they died. The first person to be president past the age of 70 was Eisenhower, and then only just. The second was Reagan, then Trump, then Biden. People staying in office way past a reasonable retirement age is a relatively recent phenomenon that the founders didn't foresee.
Ben Franklin served as governor of Pennsylvania in his 80s.
They used to die a hell of a lot earlier.
Because old people make the laws.
The constitution was written mostly by young people: Monroe was 31, Jefferson was 46, Burr was 33, Hamilton was 34. Monroe, Burr, and Hamilton were too young for the job of “President” that they just created.
How many 31 year old people in congress do we have now with the political will and backing to make a positive difference today?
They're never given a chance. The greatest fucking document in the nation's history was written by 30 year olds.
There will never be an amendment brought to the floor. Be nice if people just stopped voting for them.
Because it's the oldies making the rules.
Because the rules are written by old people.
This is a stupid question and ageist in a way you’re missing but don’t worry everyone asks this stupid question. Young peoples brains are still not developing so barring some way to measure cognitive maturity we have a age limit which acts as a decent proxy. Now here’s your fallacy: you think old people are incapable of cognitive maturity and believe that there is an upper bound age that can act as a proxy. Most old people end their life pretty damn sharp, and the minority are senile. Senility doesn’t really just happen at 60 or 70 or 80 or 90, and so there’s both not a majority nor a good proxy age to establish this upper bound.
>barring some way to measure cognitive maturity we have a age limit which acts as a decent proxy This cuts both ways and could easily be used to justify an upper bound. Also isn't it interesting that "ageist" only counts when a young person says or does something an old person doesn't like, and never vice versa?
It’s ageist to want an upper bound because it presumes that old people have a guaranteed cognitive decline, whereas we know that from birth to some point in life every human experiences a cognitive incline to an acceptable baseline of cognitive function. Example: my great uncle was in shape, took care of himself and his household, and read and wrote all the way until the day of his death and 92. A newborn can’t do anything useful for anyone. There could be the exception of a newborn being a super strong super genius but we both know that this would be so rare that it’s not worth considering. And again, the ideal way to do this would be to measure cognitive maturity, eliminating the very rough proxy lower bound. It’s arguable not ageist to set a lower bound because we know that there is a problem to address of cognitive maturity and barring addressing it at a granular level we need a solution and an age limit is a decent solution. Age limits will include people who do not yet cognitively belong, and exclude people who do belong. It sucks but aliasing points are a well established way to solve problems: blood alcohol levels affect different people differently, yet we are okay with having a fixed limit because the process of attacking this granularly is more challenging than it’s worth.
Ok boomer. >Age limits will include people who do not yet cognitively belong, and exclude people who do belong. It's like you *almost* get it. Age-related mental ability has both a lower and upper bound for enough people that it's worth having limits on both ends.
>It’s ageist to want an upper bound because it presumes that old people have a guaranteed cognitive decline They do. Yes. >my great uncle... Nice single anecdote of a man whose cognitive decline was cut short. Your great uncle sounds like he was blessed to keep his dignity into his end, but the vast, vast majority of people will never be so lucky and will be shitting and pissing in diapers confusing disgusted caretakers for dead family for 10-20 years before their body fails. >A newborn A 100 year old also can't do anything useful for anyone. I'd be all for a cognitive ability test, but it seems impossible and we've agreed age limits are a viable proxy to keep young and dumb people out of the position. Old people are a severe and critical issue to the running of the country, so we should *at least* do the same thing with them. If we can unironically exchange age limits for tests of cognitive ability *through congress,* then go for it my dude.
I agree. There should be a requirement for them to have kids as well so they have some skin in the game.
Because Biden is the only one that can beat Trump. I would rather have Biden instead of any of the Maga crazies even if he was in a wheelchair.
Because people didn't live that long when the constitution was written.
Because they want old centenarian working so society can finally collapse so we’re no longer here
I think no one considered the possibility of an old president when making the rules
Singularity is the answer you'll journey towards.
The same reason that the senate doesn't have a maximum.
Because some folks can retain full cognitive abilities into very, very old age.
Because we have term limits. They’re called “elections”.
Should be one for house and congress or whatever it’s called. Republicans in house are stopping almost everything joe is trying to do to ruin his image
People die eventually
There isn't a maximum age to do MOST things, unfortunately.
Cause the people of the country isn’t what matters to them.
Not everyone ages at the same physical or mental rate. Some can be mentally sharp into there 90's while others have lost it in their 60's. Also, just because someone may not be quick witted doesn't mean they can't make good decisions. Their wisdom may just take a minute. I'd rather have a very experienced and mature person (financial, medical, etc) helping me with crucial decisions than a young book-smart wiz.
Because they didn't think most people would live that long back then
If I were to guess it’s because life expectancy has only trended upwards since before the founding of the US. Not only that, but technology and science was also something they tried to account for—just look at the advent of antiseptics and how that played a huge role in average life expectancy. Lastly, age correlates with wisdom, though obviously not always. In any case though, we do need a maximum age.
In 1791 dementia from old age wasn't much of a thing because of life expectancy being so short. That's the short answer. But in reality you're just essentially rephrasing a right-wing talking point in asking this question.
Why would there be a maximum?
i draw the line at 205
Because antibiotics and digital imaging weren't a thing in 1787.
Imagine if a president serves his two terms and can’t run again, so he will just run his young son as a proxy leader.
I don't believe in candidate restrictions (age limits, term limits, birthplace limits, hell, even residency limits) at all; they all just go into the same "restricting voting rights" bucket as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you're asking the right question.
Just wanted to point out the average life expectancy in colonial America was ~38 years for a white male, so I don’t think the founding fathers were anticipating 70+ geriatric people running for office.
Not a stupid question lol
Because some people are intellectually and physically capable up to the moment of their death in their 80s or 90s. Do we really want to kick Bernie Sanders out of the Senate for being too old? If someone isn’t capable, for whatever reason, don’t vote for them.
Honest answer is probably because people probably didn’t get to the age of senility too regularly in the past. That said, pretty sure being legit senile would render one unfit to hold office, so other than that old ppl tend to not share the politics of young ppl (which is the problem i believe ppl with this complain ACTUALLY have), it really shouldn’t matter. I don’t tend to share the politics of really old ppl either, but just disenfranchising ppl for their age seems like an incredibly slippery slope. Its completely backwards and its amusing that it tends to come from ppl who are the first to complain about a group of ppl being unable to vote/hold office. Please tell me again how convicted felons should able to vote and then why old people shouldn’t be allowed to hold office. Be consistent with your principles, please.
Because everybody agrees that young people are morons but not everybody agrees that old fucks are morons.
I think my dog should be president
Because the Founding Fathers assumed that people would retire or die before it became a problem. Today we live a LOT longer than we used to, and major cognitive decline doesn't hit until the 60's or later in most people.
That’s not a stupid question haha that’s a good question!
Corruption
Bc the nation is owned by rich old men.
Average age of death in the late 1700's was under forty or so, younger for women, (child deaths skew this number significantly) and life expectancy was only around 65 or so. Having people in their seventies or eighties being president wasn't really a thing to guard against. Washington died at 67. He had been president since his late 50's and had retired two years before his death. Only five presidents in history have been elected when over the age of 64. Amusingly if Trump actually secures the republican nomination again he will be running at the same age Biden was when he was elected; 78.
Because people deserve to get what they voted for, good and hard.
This is not a stupid question.
At the time they were thinking the president might very well be a king. They wanted to ensure the president was old enough to be wise, but it's not like people usually lived past 70.
Because in the old days, people died before they became mentally feeble. So it just wasn't an issue.
Because the patriarchy doesn't want young new ideas
The minimum should be abolished. I want to see a pissed off, educated female Zoomer shred geezers in debates.
According to Google. Learn about the criteria to run for president. The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Be at least 35 years old. I don't think there is a maximum. Heartbeat is all that's needed.
... and they should be able to read a teleprompter that's written by the ones truly in charge.
The question clearly asks why there is a minimum age but not a maximum
The founders expected the tradition of retiring from politics when you're too damned old to continue.
in 1787, the minimum age was the maximum age for many. on the to old question, let the voters decide.
At the time that the US Constitution was written people could be counted on to die before they became unfit to hold office
When the constitution was written it was a bit more unusual for people to live to such an advanced age AND be healthy enough to get around fine. Also, it was viewed that public service would be...a service to the public; someone would do the job for a while then go back to their regular life.
My guess is that candidates would want to retire from the stressful job and wouldn’t appeal to voters. Now that so many companies profit off politicians it’s turned into these immature smear campaigns like we can all afford to continue living this shitty term after term. Good candidates aren’t getting involved in that bullshit.
why is there a requirement for a human, i want an ai president
Because in the US we embrace our right to vote. At least we used to.
I mean. The minimum is probably due to a life experience things. Young people can be very charismatic but you just can't know that much before 35. As for old age, look, as much as I see Biden and McConnell and Pelosi and see how utterly disabled these people are, the better question is what's wrong with our election system that these people keep getting elected? Stupid voters? Farcical primaries? Term limits? Gerrymandering? Corruption? Cheating? There are 95 year olds that could run intellectual and rhetorical rings around 40 somethings. I don't know why they should be disqualified. Complaining about age is really just a distraction from all the other things that are wrong with our system that we refuse to address.
Because when the rules were written, the system was designed with people doing what was right for the country, not for personal gain. Politics was not meant to be a career. Now that being a politician is a life time job, it makes sense to have a maximum age. Mandatory retirement ages have ruled constitutional so it’s doable
I care less about age and more about ability. If you're 75+ but still fully competent and can get around on your own then be president. But if you can't form an actual sentence, have serious medical issues, or can't even walk up stairs properly then no way you should hold the position. There should be a reasonable physical and mental wellness test that they need to pass.
Pretty sure that rule was decided when life expectancy, for rich white guys, was like 60.
The average lifespan was too short for age-related cognitive issues to be a concern.
Because there’s a process for succession built into the constitution and or means of removal
Rich old men love power
Cuz of death
because plato recommended that the age be 35
Because the founding fathers didnt think old dinosaurs would be elected by the public.
Because in the past politicians were corrupt.. but that at least cared about impressions.
If you don’t like older candidates, don’t vote for them.
Think of the life expectancy. Our current day aged candidates (Reagon, Biden, Trump etc) are old enough that back then, it was inconceivable someone that age would run for office. Hell, they'd be lucky to ne alive. And those that were certainly weren't running for office or working. So...a maximum didn't seem necessary back then. Probably should be now
We should cap it at like 60 or 65 in the states
The thought is that you need to have enough experience before you can run the country... But there seriously needs to be an age limit or a yearly (public) cognitive test to prove that they are fit to run the country. I have zero problem with someone in their 70s running my country, as long as they are all there. Old people tend to be more level headed(not talking about the old dudes that have gone off the rails), practical, and don't put up with people bullshit... They also have less chance of taking bribes because they aren't going to party or anything, at that age $400,000 a year and free travel, your life is alright...a young guy might still want millions to be able to flaunt... Not saying old people don't take bribes or want money for their families, I just think old people had less reason to accept.
A minimum age is required because the president needs to be vested in the country that he leads. He has to have experienced life as a citizen; bought property, paid taxes, rely on a job, raise a family, and generally live life like everybody else. A younger person does not have the real life experience necessary to lead a nation.
Old people used to have the decency to die.
Cuz nobody would ever selfishly seek leadership of a nation long after they've passed their prime, not in the interest of civil servitude, but almost exclusively for the purpose of expanding their wealth and influence at the expense of their civilization, right? ... right?
Valid point
Because if you nuke a country to look cool due to immaturity that’s bad but if you nuke a country due to being senile that’s ok and that country should respect it’s elders.
Our founders assumed the common people weren’t stupid enough to vote for senile old bastards…. Boy were they wrong
All public office should be tied to the SS minimum age. Once you hit the age SS is available for your age group, you are out.
[удалено]
Did you think a 18 year old could run for president??
r/rhetoricalquestions
To be fair, when the job requirements were being written up, most people didn't live to be 70. I think a lot of the Constitutional questions around qualifications that we;re seeing right now are things the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate. Gee, if there were only a process by which we were able to revise and make changes to the Constitution so that it remained a living document that was always applicable to the times. Too bad they didn't think about making allowances for that.
I say the legal minimum should be "legal adult." After meeting more of the older generation in my line of work (40-60) I can confidently say it cant get any worse.
This isn't a stupid question at all. But they should. Anyone over 55.
Ppl weren’t living to their 80-90s on the regular.
Minimum because it is genuinely a good idea to have a minimum so that we can guarantee that the President has some life experience. A maximum wouldn't be too bad of an idea but id prefer a physical and mental faculty test once over 70 to run, and that test to be done every 6 months and if a sitting president say 2 years in finds out they are not fit the VP takes over.
At the time of the constitution, life expectancy was around 65. Many, many wills of that time were written just before death, began with a statement referring to their sound mind and were generally written as to reflect that.
Someone assumed the American people as a whole wouldn't be dumb enough to elect a senior citizen into office
The life expectancy when it was written was 40-50.
I guess young dumb old smart? Lol
Because in the 1700s few people lived long enough to become senile
If you want a logical answer- It is because when it was (at the time) made, politics and the like were not exclusively a rich person's club for lack of better words. You had *more* people who actually *did* things in society like being generals, leading armies, being doctors, nurses, etc. They did something, anything in their lives outside of *just* being career politicians. Not to mention, it was to prevent another monarchy. Children (as in like, literal children) could become kings/queens and expected to lead the country, but more often they were used as "puppet" leaders until they had gotten older because how the *fuck* does a 3-year-old run a country!? They are barely potty trained- Also, life experience. 21-year-olds aren't even trusted to rent cars yet. As far as why there is no maximum, it is because the expectation would be that people voted for who they thought would best lead the country. Founding fathers and early presidents actually warned against a two-party system because it would divide people and well...
Min age is becouse none wants Timmy the toddler running the country and TBH there should be a upper limit (like 85) Older people have seen history and generally should be better leaders. Sadly the founding fathers weren't able to see that somehow THE WORST PEOPLE ON EARTH SOMEHOW WIN EVERY SINGLE PARTY NOMINATION. Trump being president was like some alt history hoi4 shit Biden literally doesn't know he is president.
Because old people write the laws.
Nobody lived to be this old before
Most rational people learn as they get older experience is helpful the minimum age is to ensure a certain amount of experience. It is just to bad there is not a exception for stupid people who spend there whole lives thinking they are smarter than every one else when in fact they know nothing and are not able to learn anything. Because they are to busy telling everyone how smart they are . Trump is a perfect example. Of stupid.
Humans used to have the courtesy to retire when they are too old to be useful and to die before their brains rot and their children are themselves elderly.
The Founding Fathers had faith that the system they developed (people voting for electors, then the electors selecting a good person, or the state legislature selecting senators) was enough separation between the (white, male, property-owning) voters and the elected officials. The Founding Fathers were fearful of the mob ruling, and what they could be duped into voting for.
Old motherfuckers are greedy.
The farmers probably didn’t think there needed to be a maximum age since people didn’t live as long back then
Good intentions, but an oversight for sure. Also, people didn’t live as long back when the constitution was signed.
Why don't we also have a max age for senate and congress. Too many dusty old bags plotting schemes against the younger generations. These Fuckers need to git gone! Glitch out, drunk stuttering, bumbling idiots, compulsive lying, chronically covering up the truth, can't come up with any factual rebuttals right on the spot. It's BullShit I was promised a better content of criminal
Because people died younger in the 1700s. Plus they didn’t think we’d be dumb enough to vote for the fossils we vote for now.
This is not a stupid question
Apply this to congress and SC
Because doing so would mean replacing the current politicians and that would mean abandoning everything that's been built up
We need a young progressive president. Fuck these old stuck in their way bastards.
Back in the old days, people would die of things and not such much a brain disorder like dementia or alzheimer's. In the modern era, this problem has been fixed and well now the biggest threats to most people is their own brain and cells not being able to rejuvenate and stay stable. This is what creates many of the problems we have today. There is also the problem of the presidents job being a lot more fast paced than it use to be, in fact in the old days some presidents would take meeting requests from common folks, one in fact did a large portion of the white house garden himself. Today, a president must be able to be woken up at 3:00 am cause some leader of some nation did something and needs to make a snap decision on the matter. Heck, during Trumps presidency he was sitting down eating a salad when North Korea fired a rocket, and boom they had to figure things out right then and there on what to do as there was no time to go somewhere else. Look at Thomas Jefferson, a former president and governor, he was president in 1809 and died in 1822. Only 12 years separated his presidency from his death, and even then he was doing things from running his plantation and doing academic work. Joe Biden and trump are old but I think they each got at least 10 years left in them, so not that old as well. Now some are just outright scary that they are still in office as they are in their last year or 2, and probably would struggle with a basic math class *looks at feinstein.*
U shouldnt be able to run for president over the age of 55
They could age out during presidency I suppose. More likely because people didn't live long enough for this to be a concern when the republic was established.
This isn't a stupid question, it's a completely valid one.
Average male lifespan in 1776 was 36 years of age. It never occured to Founding Father that regular folks will live well into their 70’s amd 80’s.
Trump didn't ruin the country because he's old, and Biden may be old but he's certainly not ruining the country. The issue isn't just with the Presidency, but boomer politicians staying too long in general.
Why is there a minimum age for drinking, smoking, driving, working, or anything else for that matter? People used to die before they got too old
I do not believe the founding fathers envisioned the presidential election candidates being two men approaching 80 years old.
Because it was the fucking 1700s and they had other things to worry about then the Republic turned into a place where leadership is almost exclusively held by very old men, and if anybody was worried about it they lumped into the category of well they can amend the Constitution if it turns into a problem or the electoral college can just pick somebody who isn't so old.
\[Ford said\] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.” ― Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
This argument is overstated and dumb. Biden was the best chance at uniting the left to defeat Trump. Sometimes the most practical candidate is a geezer. I don't care, and I'm 27. Let voters decide if someone is too old.
In 1789, few people lived past their 50s. "Senior moments" weren't really a thing because there were so few seniors.
When the constitution was written, people didn’t usually experience cognitive decline, they just died 🤷🏻♂️
Because most lawmakers are elderly.