The United States should pass a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishing a federal upper age limit of 75 for the presidency, Congress, and the judiciary.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

A hard constitutional age cap is an overly blunt tool. Chronological age is an imperfect proxy for competence; some people decline well before 75, while others remain highly capable after it. If the real concern is fitness for office, direct health, transparency, and accountability measures target the problem more accurately. For elected offices, voters already have the power to remove aging leaders. Adding a federal maximum age would arbitrarily narrow democratic choice and exclude experienced candidates solely because of birth date. That is a serious restriction to embed in the Constitution. For judges, especially Supreme Court justices, the stronger reform is term limits or regularized appointments, not a mandatory age cutoff. Term limits address entrenchment and strategic retirements without assuming incapacity at a specific age. A constitutional amendment should solve a problem clearly and fairly. This proposal would be rigid, hard to adjust, and likely discriminatory in effect. Better reforms exist that preserve voter choice, judicial independence, and individualized assessment of fitness.

Mistral Large

Vote: No

Introducing an upper age limit of 75 for federal offices risks undermining the core democratic principle that voters should have the freedom to choose their representatives. Age alone is a poor proxy for competence, energy, or judgment. Many leaders over 75—such as Supreme Court Justices, senators, and presidents—have demonstrated exceptional ability to serve effectively. A rigid age cap would arbitrarily disqualify experienced and capable individuals based on an arbitrary number rather than merit or performance. Furthermore, such an amendment could set a dangerous precedent for age-based discrimination in governance. It might encourage similar restrictions in other areas of public life, potentially marginalizing older citizens who remain active and engaged. The U.S. already has mechanisms like elections, term limits (for the presidency), and impeachment to address underperformance or incapacity. These tools are more flexible and democratic than a blanket age restriction. Finally, the amendment process is designed for fundamental changes to governance, not for addressing transient concerns. Age limits could be better handled through individual institutions (e.g., medical evaluations for judges) or public debate, rather than enshrining them in the Constitution. The focus should be on ensuring fitness for office through transparent, case-by-case assessments, not arbitrary cutoffs.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

Age alone is a poor proxy for competence and effectiveness in public office. Many individuals over 75 maintain exceptional cognitive abilities, deep expertise, and valuable wisdom that younger leaders may lack. Discriminating based on age would arbitrarily exclude these capable individuals, violating principles of equal opportunity and democratic choice. Moreover, voters should retain the right to evaluate candidates' fitness for office, including considering age as one factor among many. Imposing a rigid constitutional amendment undermines this democratic process and could deprive the nation of experienced leadership during critical times. Alternative approaches, such as regular health disclosures or cognitive assessments, address concerns about fitness without blanket discrimination. A constitutional age limit is a blunt instrument that fails to account for individual variation and could set a concerning precedent for other forms of arbitrary exclusion.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

While concerns about cognitive decline in aging leaders are legitimate, a constitutional amendment imposing a hard upper age limit of 75 is the wrong solution for several reasons. First, it is fundamentally anti-democratic. Voters should retain the right to choose their representatives, including older candidates they believe are best suited for the job. An age cap removes that choice and substitutes a blunt, arbitrary cutoff for the nuanced judgment of the electorate. We already have a mechanism for removing unfit officials — elections, impeachment, and the 25th Amendment. Second, the age of 75 is arbitrary. Cognitive capacity varies enormously among individuals. Some people are sharp and effective well into their 80s, while others experience significant decline much earlier. A blanket rule fails to account for this individual variation and would force out competent leaders while doing nothing to address younger officials who may be unfit for other reasons. Third, applying this to the judiciary — particularly the Supreme Court — would fundamentally alter the design of an independent judiciary. Life tenure for federal judges was established precisely to insulate them from political pressure. While there are reasonable arguments for term limits on justices, conflating that debate with an age cap is imprecise and could undermine judicial independence. Fourth, the practical barriers are enormous. A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The very officials who would need to pass this amendment are often the ones who would be affected by it, creating an inherent conflict of interest that makes passage virtually impossible. Finally, age-based restrictions raise serious concerns about age discrimination as a constitutional principle. Enshrining such discrimination in our founding document would send a troubling message and could have broader cultural and legal implications. Better solutions exist: enhanced transparency about candidates' health, cognitive fitness evaluations as a norm (though not a legal requirement), term limits, and ultimately, informed voters making their own choices.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The debate over a maximum age limit for federal office involves balancing democratic choice with the need for capable leadership. Supporting Option B (No) relies on the foundational principle of voter autonomy. In a representative democracy, the electorate should retain the ultimate right to evaluate a candidate's fitness, experience, and capability, rather than being restricted by an arbitrary demographic cutoff. While concerns regarding cognitive decline and generational turnover are understandable, a strict constitutional age limit could disqualify individuals with exceptional wisdom and institutional knowledge. Furthermore, implementing a mandatory age cap can be viewed as inherently discriminatory against older adults who remain highly capable. Rather than amending the Constitution to limit voter choice, existing frameworks like the 25th Amendment and the rigorous public scrutiny of the electoral process already serve as mechanisms to address fitness for office. Focusing on transparency and voluntary health disclosures offers a more democratic solution than a blanket constitutional ban.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus against a federal age limit, dismissing the proposal as a blunt and anti-democratic instrument. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 led the charge, arguing that age is a poor proxy for competence and that such a move would arbitrarily strip voters of their right to choose experienced leaders. Even without a formal debate, the group collectively favored specific transparency measures over a rigid constitutional cutoff.

All 5 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: A mandatory age cap is a fundamentally anti-democratic measure that replaces the nuanced judgment of the electorate with an arbitrary demographic cutoff, potentially stripping the government of experienced leaders while failing to address the actual issue of cognitive fitness.