President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have put the President’s age firmly in the spotlight. One has confirmed his intention to seek a second term in 2024, and the other still publicly flirts with the idea. Now, Washington Post columnist Charles Lane is arguing that an age limit is placed on candidates seeking Presidential office as a solution to avoid geriatric candidates from entering the race.
As part of his argument, Lane suggests the age limit would be more effective than attempting to invoke the 25th amendment in the future and more effective than the Jan. 6 public hearings at keeping Trump out of office.
The age limit would also ensure those with their full mental capacity and aren’t prone to injury or illness take office.
Before Lane dives into his reasoning for the age limit, he starts by relaying that most voters “are not excited” to see Trump or Biden on the ballot in 2024.
Pointing to a July poll by CNN, Lane substantiates his statements by using the data, which he says shows “three-quarters of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters wish the party would nominate someone other than Biden, while 55 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners do not want Trump as their standard-bearer.”
He then said that it was likely that a rematch would be likely, but offered a solution out of that scenario: a proviso in the Constitution that “No person who has attained the age of 75 years shall be eligible for election to the Office of President.”
In this scenario, both Trump, who would be 76 in 2024, and Biden, 79 in 2024, would be ineligible for the highest office in the country.
He also noted that in Trump’s case, such an amendment would be “the most direct route to eliminating the danger of another Trump presidency, far simpler and more certain than trying to disqualify him via the House Jan. 6 committee’s revelations or an indictment.”