Should there be an upper age ceiling for politicians?

I'm of two minds about this.

With every year and every generation, we improve overall health and longevity when it comes to lifestyle (not talking about viruses, superbugs, etc.). Fewer people smoke. More people exercise. We are a lot more likely to wear sunscreen. We also have a spiraling obesity problem.

So, it's not all awesome.

I am 61 years old and I am still working. I intend to work another 11 or 12 years or so. Some of this is economic, but it's also because I genuinely want to engage my mind. Since I write for a living, I can go longer in my profession than a lot of other people can.

I do bike riding or walking most days, weight lifting most days. No memory or cognitive issues out of the ordinary.

Yet a lot of people would count me out already. The employment scene is rife with age discrimination.

I hate that the electoral process is another avenue for age discrimination. This treats a lot of people unfairly, and it minimizes experience and wisdom. I'm not ready for a rest home, and a lot of people a quarter of a century older than me aren't, either.

Yet we also cannot discount that there is a cognitive decline and impairment for a lot of people. But we also need to remember that folks can get Alzheimer's in their 40s. Putting some cutoff at, say, age 75 doesn't do diddly about that.

It may be time for certain tests for the presidency. For everyone, regardless of age or party. You get on the ballot anywhere in the US and its territories, then you've got to pass such and such test. Throw in requiring your tax returns for the past 5 years while we're at it.

I'm not talking about cognitive testing like man-woman-camera-whatever. I mean an actual civics test. E.g. what does the 19th Amendment cover? Which branch of government holds the purse strings? What does cloture mean?

Does this knock out outsiders? Not necessarily. Anyone can study for a test. Is it constitutional? I think it could pass scrutiny if it was universally administered. Being 35 years old and running shouldn't exempt someone from the test.

I doubt it would come to pass. But I can always hope.

Age limit? Sounds like the government would like to restrict who I could vote for.

1. This question could be phrased as two separate questions.

2. Entering can be one question.

3. Continuing can be a separate question.

4. You might get two different answers if they are posed as two different questions.

Age is a pretty poor metric for fitness to serve in office. It seems people are trying to equate age to mental competence instead of, you know, evaluating candidates directly. Would you disqualify obese candidates because of potential health concerns, or smokers or people who get drunk and make fools of themselves in theaters? Maybe just let the voters decide.

1. If someone who had entered into office under one set of rules regarding age, it would be wrong to change the rules after the fact.

2. As long as that person is in office prior to the new rule regarding age, the new rules regarding age should not apply to them.

3. The reason I say this, is because the new rules regarding age would have been implemented after the fact.

4. If there were an implementation of some new rules regarding age, that should only affect people trying to enter into office in the future.

5. I'm not taking a side on (whether there should or shouldn't) be an age ceiling. 

6. This is just my own opinion about who (should be affected and who shouldn't be affected) if such a rule were to be implemented.

1. If that person is (grandfathered) into the old set of rules regarding age, I would say no.

2. That's only my opinion.

There are some people in their 80's and 90's who are more intellectually alert than people in their 40's and 50's.

With that said, the question asked here seems, to me, to be closely related to, "Should blacks, Jews, Hispanics, females or people with physical disabilities be disqualified from entering the political field?"

I am 87 years old...and I am as intellectually competent and able to make rational judgements as many of the younger politicians I see interviewed these days. I seriously doubt I am the only octogenarian who feels that way.

All of which is my way of justify my answering the question--NO! (Bolding, enlarging, and exclamation point all used for emphasis.)

NO!

But I'd back a single six year presidential term.