I'm with Tom S. Two out of four known to be "beyond their best," and had questionable judgement and moral capabilities before becoming the head of this land.

Liberals/Democrats should post banners and signs saying "Hand back your Social Security checks!" and that might cause some voters to think about what they're doing.

Re: "Okay, I'm kidding in that last paragraph. But not by much."
I agree with you, Ronni, that an upper age limit depends on too many hard to define qualities. But, other qualifying tests such as health are a good idea. Yet, even then we risk having Trump's infamous shill, Dr. Oz, doing the testing when he can spare time from peddling a variety of questionable supplements on his TV show.

This is from a piece on NPR in January 2016.
"Trump Shares Medical Information And Affinity For Fast Food With 'Dr. Oz', who famously declared that Trump would be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency". I will add...even though he takes medication to grow hair, among others, doesn't exercise, etc etc. and is grossly overweight.

In April this year, again on Dr. Oz's show, Trump revealed "the brain pill that doubled his IQ". Oh my ! One can only guess at this point, he was starting with a 40 and is now, (stretching it and being generous) 80.

And yes, I have an 'attitude'. Old retired RNs come with one as part of the retirement package.

Beto O'Rourke is 45.
Mike Bloomberg is 76.

Age is definitely more than a number and I'm very reluctant to vote for anyone much over 65. Alas, looks like I'll have to. Big fan of Warren, and would vote for her enthusiastically. But I wish she were somewhat younger. I do think that the minimum age for the Presidency should be raised to 40. And with people living longer, I would probably support an upper limit as well. There will always be exceptions, but generally, no matter how much kale you eat and running you do, your body is in decline and your brain is part of your body. Our politicians should be mentoring the next generation, not trying to hold onto office until they're 125. I definitely would support a mandatory retirement age for elected officials. And term limits for justices of the Supreme Court. The country would be better served with more "churn" in the public sphere. Of course the real problem is voters who pay no attention to issues and records and simply vote in a familiar name.

I think the age factor depends on the individual. I know I would not have had the energy to travel all over the world and immediately go to meetings where the future of the country was at stake; sometimes working 12 - 14 hours without sleep. But there are people like RBG who keep functioning at their best even into their nineties.

Remember, Ronald Reagan had the beginning of Alzheimer's while still in office and relied on Nancy to cue him on answers when being interviewed. This allowed the Rasputin, Dick Cheney, to literally run the presidency and look how well that turned out.

But George W. Bush was younger and not the brightest bulb in the chandelier with the similar result.

My point is that we can't generalize this any more than we can lump all old people into a stereotype.

So I think you and Alex are both half right. I think we need to be more demanding for an outside doctor and a psychiatrist to examine all candidates before they get on the ballot. Maybe a panel of doctors would be necessary. But we can no longer let an incompetent individual like -rump become the most important man in the world with all the power that goes with the office.

I go further than Lucy: I believe that a lifetime appointment for any position is ludicrous! At the time it was determined that justices should serve for life, life was much nearer 35 than 90+. Federal judges and SCOTUS justices should have a term of something between 10 and 15 years (I like 12). That would assure that each would serve under more than one president, and it would allow for staggered appointments rather than having one president appoint a majority of them.

What really bugs me these days is that a minority of Americans is governing (or, in some cases, ruling) over the majority of Americans.

Since I was the one who raised the question (thank you, Ronni), I'm fascinated by all these thoughtful responses. It seems some of us are relying on the "exception that proves the rule" reasoning in mentioning people such as Nelson Mandela and the inimitable RGB. But exceptions are just that.

As for me, I agree we need tests for candidates. Beyond that, I would put the upper age limit for the Presidency -- that is, the age when, if elected,.the candidate would have served two terms -- at 80.

That age limit would not have saved us from the loathsome current occupant of the White House, but the tests might have. Until there is some change, unfortunately, we can only hope the nation survives.

Yes to term limits for Supreme Court justices and Federal Court judges. "Lifetime" appointments were for when men lived to be 45 if they were lucky. No women were ever contemplated.
Yes to psychological testing, lie detector, complete physical, IQ test.
Yes to abolishing electoral college.
Problem? All the politicians who are more interested in holding their jobs than doing what is best for the country, and Americans who basically don't give a rat's ass and don't even bother to vote. We get what we deserve.

I don’t think having a psychological test is at all out of bounds. For the most part, I agree with Susan R.’s conditions, except that I would support upper age limits mostly because politicians seem to have absolutely no comprehension about the ravages of aging. Most of them, like Dianne Feinstein, think they can continue in office forever. Mandatory release of financial records is an absolute must and the outdated Electoral College has been bedeviling us long enough. It has to go!

For a long time I have thought that all of our political terms were out of whack. Near constant campaigning for reelection totally destroys the concept of actual performance while in office. If I ruled the nation, I would enact a single 7 year term for the Presidency. That’s all the actual work we typically get from a President and at least we wouldn’t have to put up with politicking. With a two year term to contend with, Representatives do virtually nothing except campaign for office. I see no reason why their terms can’t be closer to Senatorial terms. But they should have at least four years to prove themselves before asking to be reelected.

On the other hand, I am not so sanguine as are some about the ability of, say, millennials to carry on. It seems to me that many if not most millennials and gen x-ers are thoroughly puritanical.

I have no way to judge except by myself. As I will be 78 in less than 2 months, I think some people at that age would be fine to tackle the presidency. However, stamina is in short supply for me - and I must assume for many people in my age bracket.

I also think that the age to run should be raised to 40. People under 40 have neither the history nor the experience necessary. I also believe that prior office should be a requisite!!