It would be unfair to apply this rule to presidency without having a similar one for Congress or the Supreme Court.
Honestly not such a bad idea. I don't know if I'd go as far as is posited by the topic creator, but it's a serious problem that we still have the same cadre of career politicians running everything who won't give up power until it's wrested from their cold, dead hands. We should not be so indifferent to the issues caused by having all of our highest offices occupied by dinosaurs.I think it's one of those things like term limits though. There are definitely problems, but you're creating a whole other array of issues by establishing hard limits. The issues with the House are primarily partisan gerrymandering and districts that have become way too big. I'm not sure what to do about the Senate. I'm not particularly fond of it as an institution for a multitude of reasons (part of it being that so-called "club" mentality). I would ask two questions here. The first is whether or not the US is unique in having something of a gerontocracy. If so, why?
I think we need term limits for SCOTUS, but that's because they're not elected by the people. If the only reform made to SCOTUS was a hard age cap, it'd just encourage nominating younger and younger Justices. If there was a minimum age, perhaps it could work. However, that would just be another way of having a set term limit (which I do think we should have for SCOTUS).