True. But part of being in this mess is the career politicians who won’t move on. Why? Financial considerations; social status; no other hobbies!
Those old farts that are happy to turn the clock back, restrict women’s rights,defund humanitarian aid etc. etc. should be tried for treason.
So why do we discriminate against the young for elected office? It would be illegal for me to be President, yet I guarantee you I’m more qualified than the man currently in office. I don’t see what’s so unreasonable about age limits
If the principle is “age discrimination is wrong”, then we should remove the minimums. If the principle is that “age discrimination is permissible to ensure qualified people hold public office”, then age maximums are consistent with that principle.
I don’t see why a competent 32 year old isn’t qualified to be President while a dementia addled octogenarian is. If age discrimination against the young is permissible on the basis of maturity, then why not age discrimination against the old on the basis of cognitive decline?
I don’t think it’s an issue for most members of Congress to be in their late 40s to early 60s (avg age in the House is 58.). It’s the pinnacle of a career in public service. Plenty served as state legislators, etc. before Congress, in their 30s, 40s.
Comments
Those old farts that are happy to turn the clock back, restrict women’s rights,defund humanitarian aid etc. etc. should be tried for treason.
I don’t think it’s an issue for most members of Congress to be in their late 40s to early 60s (avg age in the House is 58.). It’s the pinnacle of a career in public service. Plenty served as state legislators, etc. before Congress, in their 30s, 40s.