Why Age Limits Work Where Term Limits Don't

Every few years, voters rediscover that Congress is old. Then someone says "term limits," and the idea dies in the Supreme Court again. This episode makes the case that there's a better reform hiding in plain sight — one that's constitutionally defensible, historically grounded, and somehow more popular than almost any other policy in America: mandatory retirement ages.We trace why U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) closed the door on term limits at the state level and what it would take to change that. Then we build the actual case for age limits — starting with what's already in the Constitution, moving through the 32 states that already force judges off the bench, through the FAA's mandatory retirement ages for pilots and air traffic controllers, through Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991), and all the way back to Federalist No. 79, where Alexander Hamilton argued against age limits and was, on this one occasion, wrong.We also correct a widely circulated misunderstanding about Social Security and age 70 — because if you're going to make this argument, you should make it with the right facts.The polling data is staggering. The constitutional pathway exists. The precedent is bipartisan and centuries old. So why isn't anyone in leadership pushing for this? Well. That's the question, isn't it.