Once again the tired mantra that old folks should not be allowed to serve as elected officials is making the rounds. You know the one that goes:
Too many of our elected officials are too old and lack the mental acuity required to perform their duties. Therefore, we need age limits to ensure mentally infirmed old folks are prevented from holding elected office before they harm the country.
At best this is an unenlightened argument born from ignorance.
Age in-and-of-itself does not determine whether a person can fulfill the duties of an elected official. In fact, in recent history I can think of only one senator (Feinstein) and one president (Biden) who were both “old” and mentally incapable of discharging their duties. Off the top of my head I can also think of one President (Wilson) and several Senators, such as Sen. Eagleton (D-MO) who had mental issues but were not old.
Wilson was 62 when he suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919 that left him incapable of performing his duties1 and Sen. Eagleton was 58 when he ended his 20 year career as a senator. The ‘keep the old folks out of office’ rule would not have prevented either of these two from serving, but it would prevent 36 current members of the Senate who are 70 plus from serving - none of whom have mental acuity issues.
Granted, at some age, some people’s mental acuity begins to decline. Emphasis on “some.” But the problem is not as widespread as many seem to believe. To the contrary, in April 2025 the IMF released a study that found:
“When it comes to cognitive capacities, the 70s are indeed the new 50s: A person who was 70 in 2022 had the same cognitive health score as a 53 year old in 2000. Older workers’ physical health—such as grip strength and lung capacity—has also improved.”2
But for arguments sake, let’s assume that imposing age restrictions on elected officials is a good Idea. What should that age be? Advocates for age restrictions are vocal in their demands, but evasive in stating at what age Americans should be prohibited from taking part in our country’s democratic process. So, let me suggest 60, or if you prefer, 70.
If you decided on 60 then George Washington would not have been able to serve his second term as President. In fact, he would have had to resign after serving the first year of his first term. Another 10 presidents would have been precluded from being elected or would have had to resign before their second term was complete. Ten senators who served in the First Congress convened in 1789 would have been precluded from doing so, and four of our Founding Fathers would have been prevented from being delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Ooops, maybe 60 is too young. Let’s try 70.
Well, under the 70 old folks are out rule, Washington would have been good, and Biden would never have been President. Of course, Trump would have been prevented from being President also, and Reagan would have been able to serve all of 16 days.
Of course under this rule, we might not even have a Constitution today because precluding the 70 and older gang would have removed Ben Franklin – a pivotal player - from the equation. Ben hit 70 six months before the Second Continental Congress – which he was a critical member of - adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Additionally, Franklin was 81 when he served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he was key in finding compromises that moved our Constitution from a dream to a reality.
Ironically, the 70 and you’re out rule would have deprived us of leaders such as Franklin, Reagan, and Trump, but done nothing to keep some of our arguably worst presidents out of office. Jimmy Carter was 52 when elected, and Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon were all 56.
So far this age rule, whether 60 or 70, is not working very well.
Wait, wait, you say, you mean we should apply age rules only to Congress. Well that makes no sense, but if you insist.
Putting 70 as the max age to serve in Congress would have forced Sen. Feinstein out of office in 2003 – long before her mental decline occurred.3 However, it would also have forced Chuck Grassley (R-IA) out in 2003 too. Yes, Grassley is old – 92 - but he’s still sharp, as proven by his exceptional job exposing the FBI and DOJ abuses during the Biden Administration.
For you liberals cheering the ouster of Grassley, I remind you that Sen. Kennedy would not have been able to serve his last seven years in the Senate; Sen. Schumer would have been forced out five years ago; and Bernie Sanders would have been a former senator fourteen years ago. Of more import, 36 current Senators (16 Democrats and 20 Republicans) would be forced out. None of these Senators have mental acuity issues. No, their only offense is they are 70 or older and hold positions some, or even many, disagree with.
Advocating for the use of age as a means to preclude the ‘mentally infirm’ from serving as elected officials is nothing more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the will of the people by dishonestly claiming it is for the good of the country.
If the people of Iowa do not want a 92 year old senator (Grassley) or those of Vermont one that is 84 (Sanders) – both of whom are mentally fit - then a majority of those people will not vote for them. To argue that either of these two Senators (as well as the other 34 who are 70 plus) should be precluded from serving solely because of their age not only denies them their constitutional right to serve, but also unconstitutionally usurps the will of the people to choose their elected representatives.4
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for weeding out those who are mentally incapable of discharging the duties of elected office. However, there are already methods in place to do this. The President can be removed both through impeachment and under the 25th Amendment. Senators and Representatives can be expelled by a 2/3 vote of their respective chamber. The fact that our government officials do not fulfill their duties to police their own is because we, the voters, do not hold them accountable for failing to do so.
Of course, the simplest method of keeping mentally unfit people from serving as elected officials is for voters not to vote for them.
There is not an elected official I can think of who had mental acuity problems that were not well known prior to them being elected/reelected.5 In spite of the media’s attempts to cover it up, anyone with a pulse knew Biden was suffering from severe cognitive issues early in his 2020 presidential campaign and Senator Feinstein’s mental decline was well known before her last reelection bid.6 And yet, people voted for them.
All that would be required to make sure those elected to office have the mental capacity to serve is for people to stop being single issue voters and/or political party loyalists. But I guess it’s easier to demand unconstitutional age limits that will deny mentally fit American’s the right to participate in the democratic process of our Republic because too many voters are too lazy to take the time to become informed voters.
After his stroke Wilson’s wife, with the help of his doctor, ran the Presidency for the last year and three months of his second term. The 25th Amendment was ratified in order to allow the swift removal of presidents who become mentally infirm while in office.
Senator Feinsein died in 2023 while a sitting member of the Senate representing California.
See Articles I and II and the 14th and 17th Amendments of the Constitution.
President Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease in 1994, five years after leaving office. There have been claims by some that Reagan first exhibited symptoms during the last year of his presidency, however, this is disputed and there is no evidence in support of those claims.
I would be open to discussing requiring all elected officials and those seeking elected office, regardless of age, to undergo cognitive tests. What to do with the results is an issue that would have to be seriously considered. Should the results be made public and let the voters decide? Should a poor result disqualify a person from office? If poor results are a disqualification, what exactly is a “poor” result? Is there a way to ensure the tests don’t become the tool of the party in power?