In an ABC News white paper on the "Global Action on Aging," the section on "Introduction to Healthy Aging" (See Full Story) noted the following:
The human life span has been growing dramatically. A person born in 1776 could expect to live 35 years. By the year 1900, the average life span was only 47 years. But a girl baby born today can expect to live 79 years, and a boy baby 72.I find this interesting. At a time when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they specified that the President of the United States must be at least 35 years of age. According to the above study on aging, the average lifespan at that time was only 35 years. If that "age" clause was adjusted each year to match the average lifespan of all Americans in this country, then that clause in the Constitution should, today, read that the minimum age to be President should be 72 years. If so, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would not even be eligible to be President. John McCain would just make it.
Being facetious set aside, I believe that the founders of this country thought it was paramount that experience, as measured by a minimum age of 35, was the minimum criteria, along with citizenship, for being President. Similarly, they imposed no "age" restriction or upper age limit. They left that up to the electorate. The age of John McCain is a legitimate issue. But, it is only legitimate if he shows mental signs of aging. Then, as said earlier, it will be up to the electorate. Because of his age, I believe the electorate will focus more closely than ever before on his choice as V.P. Beyond that, a comment from a John Murtha, now 75 years of age, is way off base and is another example of an attempt by the Democrats to place unfounded doubt in the minds of the electorate.
If age was a real issue in politics, at least 10% of our Congress should be sent to some home for the aged. Perhaps, 50% should be sent to a mental institution! Starting with John Murtha! I think his picture (above) says it all! Does he have any teeth left?