Are the qualifications for President out of date? Should they be changed? Should we cap the age? Do away with the natural born clause? Should they stay the same? This post will follow the rubric to earn points. Question your classmates on their choice and make them defend the choice. This post will close on Monday, February 24 at 5:00 pm.
Yes. I believe that the qualifications for the president should be broadened and tightened. The age minimum should be lower, and there should be more options for those within the Political Party. I also believe that there should be more advertising for new political parties, like centrists.
I agree with you Ariel, I believe there should be a limit on age specifically concerning the question “how old is too old to serve.” There are so many factors that go into why the age should be lowered in terms of making sure the president is physically and mentally capable of running their term and that they serve more than their generation. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say “there should be more options for those within the political party?”
I agree with most of the points you made, but what do you think are the benefits of advertising new political parties? Also how would we go about it?
I agree with you, I believe that the age minimum should be lower. Why do you think advertising other political parties would be more beneficial? I think doing that would only divide the current population even more.
I feel that for the most part, the qualifications for president are fin though I feel there should be a maximum age limit to go along with the minimum age limit. Perhaps we should not let someone run past the age of 60?
Parker, you make a good point about adding a maximum age limit, but why 60? Many presidents, like Reagan and Biden, have served well past that age. Wouldn’t it be more effective to assess a candidate’s physical and mental fitness rather than setting an arbitrary cap? If a 65-year-old is still sharp and capable, should they really be disqualified just because of their age?
I agree with you on that the requirements and qualifications are fine as they are. The problem is currently being that Presidents are too old and don’t accurately feel the same values as most able bodied people do. A maximum age limit could potentially resolve the issue about the problem of age.
I believe that yes, the qualifications for president are out of date. I believe that we should alter the qualifications as time goes on and as the country progresses considering it is forever changing. I don’t believe we should cap the age but instead cap it on cognitive ability. Considering some people exhibit their youth even near the end of their days, age is but a number when it comes to the reality of the world. I also believe we should disregard the natural born clause. This clause could be easily made into a loophole with foreign nations sending immigrants to have children born on U.S. soil so why not just open the idea anyway.
I agree with your point on the loophole within the Natural Clause but I have an alternative. I think having the person being a US citizen for at least 7 years would give the person an ample gap of time to have been a citizen until they can run for President.
Doesn’t the normal Presidency requirements already require 14 years of U.S. residency? So that would not be an alternative also even if they are born in the U.S. they still need to wait roughly 30 years to be qualified so the requirement of being a citizen for a few years would already be fulfilled by the time they are of age.
You make a strong argument for updating the qualifications to become president, but how would you propose testing cognitive ability fairly and without bias? Who would be responsible for designing these tests? If the qualifications change too much, do you think it could threaten the stability of the presidency, or do you believe flexibility is more important than tradition?
Cash, I agree entirely. Many people represent different cognitive abilities at different ages and one age is cannot be specified to people of different maturities. Everyone varies so I think that is a valid point. Taking this into consideraation, how do you believe we should test or measure cognitive ability? Would this be through a test or interview? And what would make the President ample enough to pass?
Yes, I believe the qualifications for the President are out of date. And yes I believe they should be changed. I believe the President should have some experience in politics prior to their election and yes, there should be a cap on the age. When it comes to Presidents, they should have life experience but not to the point their speech is slurred and they can’t perform to their best ability due to age disadvantages. I feel a good age cap would be around 65. And that 10 years of residency is sufficient. I support the natural born citizen clause because it seems a bit abnormal to have someone that is not native to America be able to rule the country. It may seem like a disadvantage or discrimination, but I find it sufficient and suitable.
Sophia, you make some strong points about updating presidential qualifications, but I’d like to challenge a few of your ideas. You propose an age cap of 65, but many past presidents, like Reagan and Biden, have served well beyond that age while still improving laws. Shouldn’t voters decide if a candidate is too old rather than enforcing a strict limit? Also, requiring prior political experience might exclude outsiders who bring fresh perspectives, like successful business leaders or military officials. Lastly, if a naturalized citizen can serve in Congress or as a governor, why shouldn’t they be trusted to lead the country? Wouldn’t loyalty and commitment to the U.S. be better determined by actions rather than birthplace?
The qualifications for president definitely need some refinements considering the difference in politics when the parameters were first established to now. The age limit should be lowered to around 60 to 65 years old because psychological decline in adults begins around middle age and only worsens with time. Having presidents that are as old as Donald Trump-who is 78-has proven to be a challenge. A good example of this is former president Joe Biden, who is the same age as president Trump. Many people noted that he often spoke in broken sentences or lost his train of thought during public speeches. President Trump does not share these problems but this is not to say that any president nearing 80 years of age could not develop these problems over time. If the health of a president is a concern due to their age, maybe we should reconsider who we are voting for.
I agree with capping the age at 60 years old as well as your take on the relevancy of ones health at this point in life. It can’t be healthy for anyone above the age of 60 to handle as much stress and activity as the President should. We should we not have to worry whether a president we have chosen is going to be well enough to do their job for the full 4 years because their health is diminishing but we as a nation should not choose to put someone in such a tough position.
The US has certain constitutional requirements for presidency: being a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and being a citizen of the US for at least fourteen years. These requirements have remained unchanged, but it can be argued that they are outdated. If an age cap was added, it could address the concerns of how the office is physically and cognitively demanding, and assist voters deciding if a president is too old. The requirement of being a natural born citizen can disqualify other qualified candidates, but the requirement also removes concerns about the candidate not being loyal to the nation. Updating these requirements could reflect the modern day better, but since the current requirements have produced diverse leaders, if changes were to be made a complex debate would take place.
I like how you worded the idea of limitations with having to be a natural-born citizen to be a president and how you addressed both sides. Is there a specific age or range that you believe is “too old” or “too young” to serve?
I agree with your statement on how the policy of having to be a natural born citizen removes concerns about them not being loyal to the nation. This policy has both its disadvantages and advantages.
The qualifications for President should be updated to reflect modern society. The minimum age of 35 could be reconsidered since younger candidates may bring fresh perspectives, but there shouldn’t be a maximum age limit because experience and wisdom come with age. The natural born citizen requirement should be removed, as long term residents who have contributed to the country should have the right to run for president.
I agree with your idea of removing the natural-born citizen requirement because it is true that current citizens who were born in another country can still have loyalty and great ideas for the US. However, how young should the minimum age be lowered? In my opinion, I believe the age requirement should stay the same because it allows the candidate to grow maturely before taking on such a big responsibility and I would keep a maximum age limit because as people age, they might experience a decline in physical or mental health, which could affect their ability to lead. The decisions of the president affect everyone not just them. Not to dismiss your idea completely because I do believe experience and wisdom come with age but I would love to hear your thoughts further on the topic.
The requirements of Presidency are out of date and should be changed, for example the age limitations should be lowered to allow for more flexible decision making while also having an age limit so that any new proposals would be more up to date with the generation. Additionally the requirements of “Be a natural-born citizen of the United States”, “Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years”, and “Be at least 35 years old” cause an overlap that causes another requirement to be somewhat redundant. For instance the residency requirement would already be fulfilled if the person was born in the U.S and lived in the U.S. till the age of 35 years as required so it would need to be changed to it wouldn’t feel as redundant, for example, it could be worded as 14 year straits or for the past 14 years instead of how it is worded now which could be interpreted as 14 years total which means a person could be raised in another country after being born in the U.S. for 21 years with going to the United States and staying to get the minimum of 14 years residency required before reaching the age requirement of 35. Overall, the age limit should be changed to allow more flexibility with the ever changing younger generation and how the residency requirement is now, it is redundant and has little purpose with loopholes that can negate its purpose.
I believe that the requirements for the Presidency are fine as is. The President should be someone who is experienced and capable. If someone were in their early twenties, they would not have the experience, knowledge, or capacity to lead such a vast country. The age of 35 ensures that people have the experience and situation to lead and represent. The age of presidents currently being in their 70s and 80s should have little to do with the current age limit due to the range of 45 years of people who can serve between the minimum age of presidency and the age of 80, where the last several presidents have served. The age gap between the minimum age and the current president’s age is too big to write off the idea that the minimum age requirement is the problem. There is potential for a maximum age limit to be imposed to ensure that candidates for presidency are in a middle ground of age where a president is not to old nor to young.
I believe that the qualifications for President are out of date. I think that there should be an age maximum requirement in order to keep this progressive nation moving forward and not remaining with ideologies that may be out of date (60 years of age). I think that the minimum age requirement should stay the same at 35 in order to ensure that there is still wisdom and knowledge coming from candidates. I agree with the Natural Born Clause and think it is a security cushion that gives American citizens security in knowing that their nation is ran by another American Citizen instead of a person who came from a separate country that may be of different principles.
I agree that the cap should be around 60 but think the minimum should be young enough for people to be aware of young people’s needs.
Yes!! The outdated ideologies is a factor I haven’t seen many people discuss but is completely relevant. How can someone so old have views that correctly represent the current political sphere?
I love your explanation on the Natural Born Clause! It makes sense about the security reason, but is there any possibility that someone from another country could be just as capable? A lot of natural born citizens are hardly educated on their own country so I’m just wondering
I believe that with the right principles and level of education anyone deemed fit can be president, however, I also know that the likelihood for America to vote any foreign citizen into presidency is incredibly low.
I respect your stance on the age cap of 60 years old, but couldn’t it be argued that people beyond the age of 60 would be just as capable of running the country as someone who is in their mid 40’s? Obviously some old people wouldn’t be suitable to be president, but I think it would be unfair to take the opportunity from all of them.
Yes, the qualifications for President out of date. Yes they should be changed specifically if you have a felony that has not been appealed you should not be eligible. The age cap should be 73. No, we should keep the natural born clause. I think if you have been in the U.S. for certain amount of time you and meet the laws of being a U.S. citizen you should be granted citizenship.
Why should the age cap be 73? That seems very specific. Why not 70 or 75?
Your argument for an age cap of 73 is interesting, but why exactly 73? What reasoning supports 73 being the cutoff rather than 70 or 75? Additionally, how would this impact experienced leaders who may still be capable beyond that age?
I think that the requirements to become president is in-date and does not need to be changed. There should not be a age gap, but their should be a mental capacity cap. What do I mean by that? I think that Trump being 78 is capable of being president because of his mental ability to answer questions, give speeches, and etc. On the other hand, Biden was not mentally capable to be president because of all of the things that happened during his presidency (a.k.a the falls, not answering questions correctly, messing up in almost every speech, the sniffing kids, being lost on stage, etc). The Natural Born Clause should stay secure because the President should be an American Born citizen. For example, Elon Musk is from South Africa, and has relations all over the world like China, and does not have America as the vocal point in his mind.
How would we go about measuring someone’s mental capacity? Would we have a standardized intelligence test for office? If so, should we have a test for every government position? I like what you’re thinking, I’d like to hear your ideas on what exactly a mental capacity cap would look like.
I like how you suggested a mental capacity cap rather than an age cap because it’s true that everyone functions differently, and what someone can’t do at one age, another can.
I see your point on mental capacity being a key factor in a president’s ability to serve, but it raises the question of how we define and measure “mental capacity.” If we set a mental capacity cap, who would determine those guidelines? Would it be a specific test or just a judgment based on performance? As for the Natural Born Citizen clause, I agree that a president should be rooted in American values, but do you think there are situations where someone born outside the U.S. could still be fully dedicated to serving the country’s best interests?
I think the requirements for President are fair as they are. I think that capping the age would be unfair. There are many older people that are still competent. However, I believe they should be some kind of test to ensure candidates have important critical thinking skills. In addition the natural born clause should stay because it prevents people from foreign country from coming to run ours.
A test to ensure critical thinking is a great idea. I would consider making an age maximum, because even outside of mental acuity an older individual may be too far from the sociocultural norms of the time. After the individual has passed that age maximum, we could then give them a test.
In fairness to all the rules set for what is required to be a president of the United States, I believe that the qualifications for President are out of date for various reasons. For one, the age restriction is a little higher than what I believe would be more appropriate. Scientifically, the average human’s frontal lobe develops by 25 years old. And with experience in the law and maybe after one can gain some experience before hitting 35, they should be able to have that understanding and opportunity to qualify for president in terms of age. I also believe that age is a big factor because there is a certain age where I feel certain individuals cannot serve due to health complications and other factors. It would be nice to see a president who can bring new perspectives, and relate to and understand younger generations who will later serve in important roles in our society. Doing away with natural clauses can allow other individuals with various backgrounds to bring perspectives as they may have lived in America for enough time to understand what the people want.
Maryam, I agree with your statement that there should be a maximum age cap. But what age would you deem as suitable to become President? I believe at an age too young that a person may lack much maturity and not full experience with life which can impact the country. How could someone be in charge of the country if they do not know how to cater to the people under a certain maturity level? I also understand your argument about getting rid of natural clauses, but how long do you think they should live in America before being able to run? What amount of time do you believe is ample to allow them to “understand what the people want”?
Fantastic questions Sophia. I really like where your head is at.
The qualifications for President are out of date. There are little requirements on the backgrounds of presidential candidates along with no age caps. There needs to be a cap on age for presidential candidates in order for the voices of the people to be adequately heard and met in response. Although the argument that people who have lived longer have more experiences can come into play for leadership positions. It does not however make them connected to what the voices of the people want. Older age candidates can be more prone to strictly hold onto outdated social norms that no longer match up with the ever changing public opinion. As such Americans should do away with the natural born clause because of its outdated ideals of racism and discrimination that are no longer called for in this day in age. To reform the natural born clause would be following the foundation of America.
I wouldn’t consider having the Natural Born clause founded upon racist or discriminatory ideals. Is it rude? I would say so, yes. I would have a hard time running for president because my country of origin was South Korea, yet I was born on a US military base. But keeping this clause is important for the American people because not only does it protect their interests of freedom and keeping their leadership to someone they could reach, it prevents other ideals from being implemented into our society. If someone from a foreign nation were to be put in office, in charge of making this country run smoothly, what’s stopping them from dismantling and destroying the very agencies and departments we as students need to thrive? $900 million taken from the Federal Research Agency that tracks student progress. Giving them access to the Federal payment system. And making a joke out of his decisions.
Are the qualifications for President out of date? Should they be changed? Should we cap the age? Do away with the natural born clause? Should they stay the same? This post will follow the rubric to earn points. Question your classmates on their choice and make them defend the choice. This post will close on Monday, February 24 at 5:00
I’d say the qualifications for President are good, excluding age. The age maximum should be 65 to avoid scenarios where the country’s leader is at full capacity. Past this age, the mental acuity of the president isn’t guaranteed, and this is a necessity for a role with so much responsibility. Past 65, a mental acuity test should be given to ascertain mental capacity. This gives a chance to older people who still remain competent.
I agree with you in that the maximum age should be around 65 and I think that a mental acuity test is a really good idea.
I agree with that a lot, Lyriq. It feels a little bit much to keep a President in office though they may have a physical or mental incapacitation or limitations, especially following the stresses of being President. The mental acuity test is something I’m completely open to, as it gives a lot of American people clarity on the state of their leader.
Adding a maximum age limit would be good to ensure competency and to keep generational experiences in line with the majority of the population. I agree with you.
Yes, the qualifications for the president are out of date. There are little requirements that someone needs to be president and there should be more so that not anyone can just be the president. As well as there should be an age cap. Although, the current president is able to do their job despite the age that he is, however the age cap should be lowered since there is a higher possibility of death for the President being old. Older candidates may have a bias towards what they think is best, and not for the best for the people. The US should do away with natural born clause because there are many people that have lived in the US for more than half of their lives and could know what people want. As well as they could bring a different perspective to the people.
This could sound like an extreme case, but I spent nights analyzing every decision I’ve seen President Trump make, and it seems as though we’re getting to this point;
Having the natural born clause protects the people of America in many ways, keeping our past and future leadership within the country. It keeps adults from other countries from entering the United States and being placed in office. It prevents those people from dismantling the very departments and agencies that the citizens require for a prosperous future.
When we have someone from outside the country attempting to take office, it’s seen as a threat to our freedom. I understand what doing away with the Natural Born clause *might* do in theory, but in reality, the reality of an injust world, this is exactly what will happen, and I fear it may happen sooner than any one of us can think. (Ominous, I know. Fight me.)
I completely agree with the fact that older people do normally have a strong bias to the “older days” which is shown directly in MAGA. Staying in a loop of old leaders will cause this country to fall behind and prevent needed cultural and governmental growth to start thriving as a country.
The qualifications to be president are extremely outdated. While theres a minimum age to run, there is no maximum. Which then leads to presidents who could be too old to run for the full 4 terms and it should be up to the voters whether a candidate is too old or not. The natural born citizen caluse excludes naturalized citizens even if they’ve lived outside of the U.S for a short period of time i think that this is very discriminatory when looking at most of the population.
I think that the qualifications for President are still reasonable and are not in need of change as of today. However I think a age cap of 65-70 years old would be beneficial as many people experience cognitive decline at ages 70+ so it would ensure that the president is mentally health. As for the natural born cause I believe that it should stay the same because it prevents foreigners from being in charge of our country and it just makes sense for the president to be from the place that he is overseeing.
In order to maintain the interests of the American common folk, there needs to be a push and pull scenario on who they elect. For starters, yes, I think the age should have a tipping point. There shouldn’t be a presidential candidate over the age of 65 or even a little less, because that’s around common retirement age for most Americans. Having a natural born clause prevents anyone from anywhere in the world from entering the country to be elected president and then change our laws to fit the interests of their home country. This is an extreme, I’m sure, but from an analytical standpoint, it seems as though our current president is already shaping our fundamental rights and crucial laws to fit his narrative once again. He isn’t thinking in the interest of the people, having well passed a healthy working age. People had these concerns of our previous president, too. Having someone at an age as old as theirs puts risks on the American people.
I would say that the age limit for the President is a bit outdated in the sense that times change. Having a President who was born during times where the majority of rights and laws today were non-existent or frowned upon may be detrimental to society. I’m aware that not every President will have the same ideologies as one another, but I feel there should be a limit to avoid dangerous scenarios like Lyriq said. I also feel like a President should never be able to run with any sort of felonies or charges against him. If government workers and crime workers need a clean background check for their job, why doesn’t the President need one? It’s unjust to have any sort of leader in office when there is a risk to them having a charge or multiple on their profile.
I agree with adding a criminal check as a requirement to match with every other office position requiring one, additionally criminals are more easily swayed to bribes and offers from foreign lands so having the door open to the possibility, no matter how slim it is, is a recipe for disaster as people with less to lose are people who are more willing to throw everything away for their own benefit.
I agree with your age perspective. It is dangerous to us as a country if we do not get the chance to grow and learn from previous laws. The felon point is also very important- why have a leader who cannot follow the laws he is supposed to be enforcing? It seems counterintuitive.
I think that some of the presidential requirements are a bit out of date, but not all. I disagree with the age policies. The age requirement should be a little younger, maybe around 30, and there should be an age that you can’t be president after. I think a good age for this would be 60 – 65. This would be because of the things that come with old age like fatigue, forgetfulness, and many other things that could impact how a presidents runs the country.
I agree with your idea of a cap off for when u can’t be president but I don’t believe the age limit shouldn’t be lowered to run for president. 30 isn’t enough time for those who want to be president to mature and fully grow. That opens doors for naive and inexperienced people to run for office.
Yes, the qualifications for president are out of date. The minimum age should be 30 and maximum should be 55. Having someone younger in office is better because they will understand the younger and current generations. They will have a better impact for our country than the older people who are still stuck in their narrow-minded traditional ways. There should be an age cap because it is not right for an old person to be making changes for this country and the people when they’re not even going to be the ones living in it because they will be gone soon anyways. It is unfair! They don’t understand what it is like living in modern society today, and having a younger president to represent the country, they will have this understanding and will know how to make positive improvements. I am okay with the natural born because it makes sense to have someone who is American to be president, but I feel like this can limit the potential people that would make good presidents. The residency should be 3-5 years because 14 years is wayyy too long. It would be nice having a president that has traveled and lived abroad because it will broaden their knowledge of other countries, and this will be very helpful for running our country and building international relations.
*And living abroad will help to build empathy for other cultures and people because the US consists of many cultures and ethnicities. The president needs to understand their citizens on a deeper level.
The qualifications for the president are out of date. A lot of things have been changed regarding the government and the president qualifications need to be one of them. The changing communities deserve a government to align and change with them. Specifically, the age requirement needs to be adjusted. The minimum I think should stay at around 35, but there needs to be an age maximum which stops at about 50-55. I think this age range is appropriate to accurately lead the older and younger generations, and there is less of a chance of being stuck with a president who will continue outdated policies and orders. The natural born clause I think is somewhat appropriate, but I think that if the person has citizenship and has proved to serve the country through other government jobs it should not be something immediately shunned- if we are in need of a good leader and they are one, why shouldn’t they lead? Being born in the United States does not have anything to do with the interest of the country as long as they have lived a significant amount of their life in the United States.
I believe the qualifications to become president should stay the same. The age limit staying 35 ensures that the future president is mature enough to make rational decisions. Changing the qualifications could give more people a chance to run, but it might also change the kind of person who ends up being president. Whether or not the qualifications should stay the same depends on how we view leadership and who we think is the right person to guide the country.
I agree with your point. Keeping the qualifications the same helps ensure that future presidents have enough maturity and experience to make important decisions. The age requirement of 35 is a good balance, allowing for maturity without limiting people’s opportunities too much. While changing the qualifications could open up the race to more candidates, it might also change the type of person who runs and potentially lead to unintended consequences. Ultimately, the decision about whether to change the qualifications comes down to how we view leadership and who we think is best suited to guide the country.
The qualifications for U.S. President, like being at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen, could be outdated. Some people argue that we should set an age cap to make sure the President is physically and mentally able to lead, especially since some candidates are very old. Others think the natural-born citizen rule should be removed because it excludes people who were born outside the U.S. but have lived here their whole lives. However, these rules have worked for over 200 years, so changing them could cause problems or have unintended consequences. It’s a tricky issue, and any changes would need to be carefully considered.