Federal Officials, Age Limits, And Competency Tests: Yea Or Nay?
I’ve been seeing a lot of chatter about placing age limits on people running for federal office and requiring politicians over 75 to take a competency test. The former is counterproductive, the later a poorly thought-out half-ass solution, both of which require a constitutional amendment.[i]
The stated reason people are calling for age limits is that some of our older officials are obviously suffering a loss of cognitive abilities. They point to President Biden and of course Senator Feinstein to make their point. And yes, in my opinion neither is capable of discharging the duties of the office they hold, and both should be removed. Which leads us to the first question we need to answer – at what age should citizens be prohibited from holding federal office? Some on social media have called for 65 as the oldest a person can serve; others are calling for those 70 and older to be banned from holding office. Let’s be generous and set the age limit at 70.
Prohibiting those 70 or older from holding office would make 34 current senators ineligible to serve. Only one – Senator Feinstein (CA-D) who is 90, has suffered cognitive decline to the point where she cannot perform her duties. However, it would allow Senator Fetterman (PA-D) whose cognitive abilities prevent him from discharging his duties to remain in the Senate. Fetterman is 53.
On the opposite side of the coin is Sen. McConnell (KY-R) who’s 81. Granted, he has physical problems, but I’ve not seen signs of cognitive decline that would prevent him from fulfilling his responsibilities as a senator. Additionally, in 2016 Mconnell, as Senate Majority Leader prevented Merrick Garland’s confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. Given Garland’s actions as the Attorney General, everyone who cares about the Constitution must admit that McConnell prevented a catastrophe of epic proportions by blocking Garland’s confirmation. At that time McConnell was 74 and would not have been a member of the Senate under the proposed age limit and Attorney General Garland would be Supreme Court Justice Garland…for life.
Senator Grassley (IA-R) is 89 and known for uncovering government corruption and spending follies. His latest contribution – he was the driving force in uncovering and releasing the FBI form 1023 exposing then Vice President Biden’s alleged foreign bribery scheme. Though he shows no signs of cognitive problems he would not have been in office under the ‘older than 70 rule’ when he spearheaded this effort.
Progressives and others left of center who would cheer McConnell and Grassley being forced out should think twice before cheering too loud. In addition to Feinstein, 18 other Democrats/Democrat aligned senators would no longer be able to serve, including Schumer (NY-D), Sanders (VT-I), Cardin (MD-D), Durbin (IL-D), Blumenthal (CT-D), Markey (MA-D), Shaheen (NH-D), Hirono (HI-D), Warren (MA-D), Wyden (OR-D), and Stabenow (MI-D) – all stalwart supporters of the Biden Administration’s progressive policies and none of whom show signs of mental incapacity.
Speaking of President Biden, the ‘70 and older rule’ would not only prevent him from running for reelection but would have prevented him from running for the presidency in the first place – he was 78 when he was sworn into office in January 2021. Of course, it would have also prevented Trump from being president – he was 70 at the time he was sworn into office in 2017. Additionally, Regan would have had to leave office a year after being sworn in.
Bottom line, a blanket rule banning people from serving in an elected office over a certain age doesn’t solve the problem of removing, or preventing the election of people to federal office whose cognitive abilities prevent them from fulfilling their duties. Granted, Feinstein and Biden would be out – along with 33 other Senators that have no cognitive impairment. But Fetterman, who has a cognitive impairment, would still be in.
Given these facts, I have to wonder if the cries to impose age restrictions is nothing more than attempts by some to prevent those they disagree with from holding elected office. Hugo Chavez would be envious…
Ms. Haley’s suggestion that all elected officials over 75 must take a competency test is good in theory…in reality, not so much. Setting aside the fact that requiring competency tests for federally elected officials would also require a constitutional amendment, it does not solve the problem.[ii] Again, it would provide a means to remove older officials who lack the mental ability to perform their duties, but not the younger ones like Sen. Fetterman.
If we’re going to impose competency testing, then it should be required for everyone who runs for federal office and everyone who’s nominated to an office that requires Senate confirmation, such as federal judges, cabinet officials, ambassadors, etc. These initial tests should then be followed by mandatory annual tests. However, this still would require a constitutional amendment, at least for it to apply to the President, Senators, Congressmen, Federal Judges, and Supreme Court Justices.
The bigger problem with this type of program is – who’s going to run it? It would seem logical for Congress to run the program for senators and congressmen, the executive branch for the President and those who must undergo confirmation by the Senate (other than judges), and the judicial branch for Judges and Supreme Court Justices. Problem with this plan is that not many Americans have confidence in any of these institutions. In 2022 Gallup found that the Supreme Court was trusted by 25% of Americans, the Presidency by 23%, and Congress by a staggering low 7%. How can you have a program of such importance run by institutions that the vast majority of Americans don’t trust? You can’t.
It might help if we had a press Americans had confidence in to be honest and hold government accountable, but we don’t. In 2022 Gallup found that only 11% had confidence in TV news and 16% in newspapers. In 2022, the only government institution that more than 50% of Americans had confidence in was the military – at 64%. I certainly don’t want the military getting involved in monitoring our civilian government.
I guess we could create another agency to administer a mental competency program. However, given the performance of existing federal agencies – think DOJ, FBI, CDC, EPA, HHS, etc., – I hold little hope that a new one would be effective or honest. Call me a cynic, but I see a new agency with the power to determine who can and cannot run for federal office as nothing more than fertile ground for more partisan politics and corruption.
If we could find a way to ensure mental competency tests were administered fairly and prohibit those who failed them from holding federal office, then I might support the idea, depending on the details. I think this is possible, but would require significant malicious forethought, something our elected officials have proven less than mediocre at engaging in.
Aside from being ineffective, constitutional amendments that would impose age restrictions and mental testing are unnecessary. There are ways to remove Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, and federal Judges, who are unable to perform their duties:
- A President can be removed through the impeachment process and the 25th
- Senators can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the senate;
- Congressmen can be expelled by two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives; and
- Judges can be removed through the impeachment process.
Yes, removal through the impeachment process is difficult and to date no President has been removed from office in this manner. However, Nixon resigned when it became obvious that he would be both impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. Additionally, 15 federal judges have been impeached of which 8 were removed by the Senate and 4 resigned before the impeachment process against them began.
The Senate brought expulsion motions seventeen times since 1905. In these cases, one senator died, and another’s term expired before the expulsion vote, six resigned before the vote, and nine survived the vote. The House of Representative moved to expel only two congressmen since 1900, and were successful both times.
Even if the person is not removed, the impeachment and expulsion processes are effective in forcing them to resign. In other words, who cares if they’re removed by the process or resign to avoid being removed by the process? – they are gone.
The problem is not that removing officials through the impeachment or expulsion process is hard. Instead, the problem is the process is not used enough, and that is on us. How many have called their representatives and senators to impress upon them that removal proceedings should be initiated against specific Senators, Congressmen, Judges, and the President? How many of us have made this an election issue? How many of us have started petitions – online or paper ones? If citizens don’t care enough to do more than grumble on social media platforms, then why should our elected officials care enough to effectively police themselves?
There is another and even better alternative to fixing the problem of mentally incompetent people holding office than imposing arbitrary and ineffective age limits on federal officials – don’t vote for them. Biden, Feinstein, and Fetterman’s mental problems were well known, and yet they were elected. Why? Get involved with your party on the local level and recruit people to primary those you feel are no longer mentally capable, too old, or not representing their constituents properly.
Demanding age limits and competency tests for federal officials is nothing more than a misguided attempt to cure our laziness as citizens by the extraordinary means of amending the constitution.
[i] See: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
[ii] Id.