Opinion | Six ways to protect America from an ageing president

In Britain, prime ministers can be “promoted” – that is, removed from power by being made a peer and given a seat in the House of Lords. It's a system that works well for smooth transitions of power. Because prime ministers customarily sit in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords, the new prime minister is protected from the machinations of a vengeful predecessor. Former prime ministers are given flashy titles and robes to soften the blow of political humiliation, and get cheap, harmless side jobs as an excuse to hang out in the parliament that defined their lives, rather than feeling forgotten. Margaret Thatcher was made Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, even after being overthrown by her own party.

Of course, I know there is a political animosity towards aristocrats in the United States, but there is no need to call them aristocrats.

I would propose that every outgoing president who serves at least half a term (to stop anyone from gaming the system and disrupting Congress by rapidly replacing the president) be invited to take a permanent seat in Congress as the “elder” of the United States, a position the former president could hold for life or until retirement. Italy has already done something similar, making former presidents life members of the Italian senators.

Robert Fraser, Salford, United Kingdom

As a senior citizen, I am as opposed to age discrimination as anyone else, but we need to recognize that some jobs need age standards. Airline pilots are not allowed to fly indefinitely. We need a constitutional amendment requiring presidential candidates to be under 70 when they take the oath of office.

All of our candidates, including third party candidates and independents, except for the Libertarian Party candidate, are over 70 years old. This is absurd. It's a sign of a skeletal system.

Ann Birchall, Tarrytown, New York

Many of America's leaders refuse to recognize that there comes a time when it is in the public interest to step down. Unfortunately, for many of them, life in public service is the only thing they have known, and they like the power and recognition that comes with long tenure.

Now is the time for constitutional reform. It would probably go something like this:

“A presidential candidate may not run for federal office for a term that cannot be completed by the year immediately preceding the year in which he or she reaches age 70 (or 72).”

Similarly, it would be wise to combine age and term limits in language such as:

“No candidate for election to the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States may hold office for more than fifteen consecutive years, or for more than the year preceding the year in which such candidate attains the age of seventy years, whichever occurs first.”

Certainly, America has many talented people who exceed these age limits. But most of them are not qualified to serve in the demanding role of civil service, much less the presidency. Creating mandatory vacancies with age and tenure restrictions would be an important step in grooming the nation's next generation of leaders.

John A. Walters, Leonardtown, Maryland

The 25th Amendment should be amended to require periodic cognitive testing when the president reaches a certain age, say 75, or if the leader suffers a stroke or brain injury. The Cabinet or Congress could also order cognitive testing for good cause. If the president fails cognitive testing badly, he should be replaced, even temporarily, and allowed to return only if new tests show improvement. Cabinet members may not learn of a leader's cognitive impairment in a timely manner, and even if they did, they may not have the skills to make a diagnosis or make decisions about what they learned.

If amending the Constitution is too difficult, then we need legislation requiring the testing and the publication of summary results. While the public has a right to medical privacy, the president is held to a higher standard.

Nancy Hilding, Black Hawk, South Dakota

Regarding Megan McArdle's July 3 online column, “The 25th Amendment is the wrong way to address Biden's decline”:

There must be a realistic path for removal if the president is unable to perform his duties due to mental or physical incapacity. Now is the time for Congress to reinstate the bill and establish a Commission on Presidential Fitness to Perform, which would be responsible for administering the 25th Amendment process if the president becomes unable to perform his duties.

We agree with McArdle's conclusion that the risks posed by a Biden presidency are “less dangerous” than the threat posed by “four more years of Donald Trump.” We face great risks to our democracy and institutions. To protect our country and the world, we must amend the 25th Amendment.

Beth D. Cohen, Belchertown, Massachusetts

Pat K. Newcomb, Longmeadow, Massachusetts

I work in quality assurance, which means my job is to analyze the root causes and dig deep into causation of events in the organizations I support. That experience has led me to ask a different set of questions than those who, after the first presidential debate, were primarily concerned with whether President Biden should step aside as a Democratic candidate and perhaps even as a presidency.

In short, is it humanly possible for one person to handle all the problems currently facing the presidency? Isn't it time to transfer some of the president's responsibilities to the vice president so that the president doesn't have to fly halfway across the globe as often? Should the vice president's job description be revised, especially so that he or she can be better prepared if they assume the presidency in the future?

Presidents are human, too. Before the debate, Biden not only faced physical challenges that would have held him back even at the peak of his life, but he also had to deal with the fallout from his son's trial and conviction. It's no wonder he had a cold.

But it is shortsighted to focus on whether one individual can do the job, rather than on the essence of the work. In quality assurance, scapegoating serves no purpose other than the short-term satisfaction of a few people. There are always people involved; the system is there to help people. So we don't focus on who failed; we focus on what in the system is not working, what has failed, what is missing.

The Presidency is not a solo job. It's a team effort. Can a president who pushes himself to his physical and emotional limits at the expense of his mental faculties be considered doing his best? New resources and delegation of authority create highly effective backstops. Conducting such an evaluation is good management practice.

We continue to apply 20th century methods of governance to the unimaginable modern threats of the 21st century. Let us break free from that blindness and rethink our actions.

Marcia M. Weedon, Barrington, Rhode Island

In his July 5 online column, “Who Would Be the Least Worst Vice Presidential Pick for President Trump?”, Max Boot incorrectly describes the Quincy Institute as an “isolationist think tank.”

While the Quincy Institute argues against an overreliance on U.S. military power, it certainly does not favor U.S. withdrawal from the world. One of the principles that underpins our work, and which can be easily found on our website, is the idea that “the United States has a vested interest in being a responsible and constructive member of the international community.”

The Institute believes in active U.S. diplomacy in pursuit of international peace. We advocate for a key U.S. role in negotiating an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, and believe that U.S. pressure to negotiate must be accompanied by continued assistance to Ukraine as a means to strengthen its position at the negotiating table. We urge deepening U.S. diplomatic and economic engagement in pursuit of a stable balance of power in East Asia. We urge President Biden to use U.S. influence to pressure Israel to end the blockade of Gaza.

The institute should only appear “isolationist” to those who believe that the only meaningful way for the United States to engage with the world is to go to war.

The author is CEO of Quincy Institute.