Stan A. emailed me the following in response to my article that asked: “Could the National Popular Vote Compact Cure What Ails Us?:
“It seems that the real problem is “Winner Takes ALL” and not the Electoral College.
“If the federal government mandated that winner takes all can’t be used with the electoral college, but electors must be apportioned by the popular vote in each state, it seems that it would solve the problem.”
Mr. Amatucci’s proposed solution makes a lot of sense – possible even more effective than the National Popular Vote. It’s simple, straightforward and deserves serious consideration as the constitutional amendment.
Another subscriber, who asked to remain anonymous, wrote:
“Aside from basing electoral college votes on the popular vote in each state, a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to citizens between the ages of 35 and 75 would be in the best interests of the country.”
I agree, subscriber; the Qualifications Clause in Article II, Section 1, of the constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
By Dave Allen for Discount Gold & Silver
Stan A. emailed me the following in response to my article that asked: “Could the National Popular Vote Compact Cure What Ails Us?:
“It seems that the real problem is “Winner Takes ALL” and not the Electoral College.
“If the federal government mandated that winner takes all can’t be used with the electoral college, but electors must be apportioned by the popular vote in each state, it seems that it would solve the problem.”
Mr. Amatucci’s proposed solution makes a lot of sense – possible even more effective than the National Popular Vote. It’s simple, straightforward and deserves serious consideration as the constitutional amendment.
Another subscriber, who asked to remain anonymous, wrote:
“Aside from basing electoral college votes on the popular vote in each state, a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to citizens between the ages of 35 and 75 would be in the best interests of the country.”
I agree, subscriber; the Qualifications Clause in Article II, Section 1, of the constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
Why not an amendment, then, that adds a mandatory 70, 75 or even 80-year old age ceiling? That is, to serve as president, a citizen must be between 35 and say 75 years old.
If the president turns 75, or whatever the ceiling age is, during his or her term of office, s/he would be ineligible to serve further once that term ends.
Is this proposal ageist? Yes, by definition, it is. But the constitution since its adoption in 1789 has been ageist with its 35-year old minimum.
Like the age requirements to serve in the U.S. House and Senate, an age requirement for the presidency ensures that a person holding the office will have the maturity necessary for the position.
There’d also be enough time to look at that person’s previous roles in government or business for voters to be able to assess the merits of electing that person as a presidential candidate.
(Ok, I know…maturity, right? Well, all I have to say about that is, the voters did it!)
In his Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story stated, “Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required…, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age.”
Whether the ceiling is 70, 75 or 80, reasonable people can conclude that at some advanced age, a person’s mental and intellectual capabilities begin to significantly slip.
And if you’re thinking, yes, but couldn’t the age be set by Congress based on who might be president, particularly if they’re in the opposite party? Sure could.
That’s why a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission should be empanaled, comprising experts in aging and related diseases, to recommend a specific age to be included in the constitutional amendment.
This isn’t to say that a 40 or 50-something president can’t be off his or her rocker. Plenty of them have been.
No. Other things being equal, some appropriate ceiling age is a reasonable thing to require of our presidents. We do it for thousands of lower-level judges around the nation, military officers and other positions. Why not for our Commander-in-Chief?
Subscriber Christine Z. answered:
"Nope, because it would rule out President Trump. Besides, we all know mental acuity and acumen has nothing to do with age.
"Many people who are 80 are sharper and more intelligent than young people in their 30s because we see it today.
"The most important trait to have is common sense, which is woefully lacking in most of the population these days."
Thanks for your comment, Christine. All other readers, please let me know your thoughts about the National Popular Vote and/or an upper age ceiling for presidents.