By Andrew Jean Baptiste ’24
Our constitution has specified that a president must be at least 35 years old in order to ensure that the nation’s chief executive has the maturity and experience required for a position of such authority and esteem. However, with the recent media coverage surrounding President Joe Biden’s health and old age stirring controversy, it has become evident that the U.S. must enforce a maximum age limit for presidential occupation.
The writers of our constitution understood that, while there could be exceptional individuals in their twenties who are fully prepared to take on a presidential role, exceptions should not dictate the norm. Since the birth of our nation, the longevity of the United States’ highest office has demanded stability to ensure its effectiveness over time.
Medical advancements and lifestyle changes have enabled longer lifespans, making it possible for older candidates to participate in contemporary politics. At the start of their terms, both Former President Trump P’00 and Biden were the oldest presidents in U.S. history.
It remains an undeniable fact that as we age, our mental and physical faculties decline. While there are exceptions — Zlatan Ibrahimovic’s European football career — a governing document as esteemed as the Constitution cannot operate on inconsistent rarities.
The debate on reevaluating presidential eligibility is not meant to be ageist or to disregard the wisdom that our elders have; instead, it’s meant to acknowledge the human fate of facing limitations in our capabilities as we age. These limitations can impact a president’s faculties to make decisions.
Dissenters may argue that the rigorous presidential campaign prepares the candidate for office as they are forced to battle societal pressures and intense political scrutiny. However, this assumption overlooks the reality of modern campaigning. The purpose of campaigns is for a candidate to sell themselves to an audience and, in the process of doing so, conceal any potential issues that voters may otherwise criticize. Voters are, therefore, presented with a heavily manufactured facade instead of the true nature of their candidates.
Voters are often ignorant of the mental and physical capabilities of their candidates. Even if voters were provided with thorough medical records of said candidates, they cannot guarantee a president’s projected well-being.
Recent history has shown that a president’s health issues may remain undisclosed or downplayed during their time in office, only coming to light later. Jacob Appel, a physician who has researched the medical histories of U.S. presidents at Mount Sinai Hospital, notes that presidents are neither required to publicize their medical records nor obliged to verify the accuracy of the information presented. Thus, relying solely on campaign dynamics and medical records may not be sufficient to safeguard the nation’s highest office; instead, general information that correlates motor functions and neurological capabilities with age must be taken into account.
In the end, adopting a maximum age limit for presidential eligibility should not stem from ageist ideologies; instead, the goal must be to make sure the president can function as commander-in-chief for the entirety of their term. This role involves being consistent in their competence and possessing the knowledge required to guide our country through difficult challenges and rapid change.
Now we are rolling the dice by potentially re-electing Joe Biden, 80, and Donald Trump, 70. It’s time for a national debate on whether a fair system for determining presidential eligibility — one that takes into account both the minimum and maximum age limits — would be better for our society.
