Remove President Age Requirements
Remove the requirements to be above the age of 35 to run for president.
- Elimination of age discrimination: Removing age requirements for the presidency promotes equal opportunities and eliminates age-based discrimination. It allows individuals of all ages to participate in the democratic process and pursue the highest office in the country based on their qualifications and abilities, rather than their age alone.
- Expanded pool of candidates: By removing age restrictions, a wider range of experienced and capable individuals can consider running for president. This opens up the opportunity for fresh perspectives, innovative ideas, and diverse leadership styles, enriching the democratic process.
- Recognition of individual capabilities: Age does not necessarily determine an individual's competence or ability to lead. Removing age requirements acknowledges that leadership qualities and qualifications can be found in individuals of various ages. It allows voters to assess candidates based on their merits, experience, and vision, rather than relying on arbitrary age limits.
- Alignment with other elected positions: Many other elected positions in the United States, such as governors, senators, and representatives, do not have age requirements. Removing age restrictions for the presidency brings consistency and aligns with the principles of equal opportunity and democratic representation that underpin the country's political system.
- Adaptation to societal changes: Society is evolving, and notions of age, health, and vitality are changing as well. Removing age requirements recognizes that individuals can maintain their mental and physical capabilities well into later stages of life, challenging ageist stereotypes and outdated assumptions about aging and leadership.
- Promotion of intergenerational dialogue: Allowing candidates of different age groups to run for president encourages intergenerational dialogue, collaboration, and the exchange of ideas. It fosters a more inclusive and representative political landscape where diverse perspectives and experiences can contribute to better decision-making processes.
- Focus on qualifications and experience: Removing age requirements shifts the focus to the qualifications, experience, and track record of candidates. It encourages voters to evaluate candidates based on their knowledge, leadership skills, policy positions, and ability to govern effectively, rather than relying solely on age as a determining factor.
- Trust in the electoral process: The removal of age restrictions can enhance public trust in the electoral process, as it demonstrates a commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and the principle of individual liberty. It signals a belief in the wisdom and judgment of the electorate to make informed decisions regarding candidates' suitability for the presidency.
- Reflecting the evolving demographics: The United States has a diverse and rapidly changing population, and removing age requirements acknowledges and reflects the changing demographics. It allows for candidates who may better understand and represent the interests and concerns of different age groups, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy.
- Encouragement of civic participation: By removing age restrictions, more individuals may be motivated to engage in the political process, including younger generations who may have felt excluded by age limitations. This can lead to increased civic participation, voter engagement, and a stronger democracy overall.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009):
- In this Supreme Court case, the Court clarified the burden of proof in age discrimination cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court ruled that plaintiffs have the burden of proving that age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action, meaning that the discrimination would not have occurred "but for" the individual's age.
Smith v. City of Jackson (2005):
- As mentioned earlier, this Supreme Court case established that disparate impact claims can be brought under the ADEA. The Court recognized that even if an employer's policy or practice is neutral on its face, it can still be considered age discrimination if it disproportionately affects older workers.
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins (1993):
- In this Supreme Court case, the Court held that a decision to terminate an employee based on anticipated retirement eligibility did not violate the ADEA. The Court clarified that the ADEA does not protect against discrimination based on future eligibility for retirement benefits, as long as age was not the determining factor in the decision.
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. (1996):
- In this Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that the ADEA protects individuals who are discriminated against based on the "reasonable factor other than age" (RFOA) defense. It held that even if an employer's action is based on factors other than age, if those factors are not reasonable, then the employer may still be liable for age discrimination.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP (2007):
- In this case, the EEOC sued a law firm for allegedly maintaining a partnership policy that forced partners to retire at a certain age. The court ruled that mandatory retirement policies based on age, absent any other legitimate reason, violated the ADEA.