I am struck by the arguments here that a reasonable old-age limitation 'restricts the voters' freedom' but the constitutional minimum limits that Chris cites in his essay somehow do not 'restrict the voters' freedom'...

The definition of "limitation" is "restriction" so there's really no need to argue that... probably why no commenter actually did. Limiting the age on the lower end of the spectrum actually makes sense since there isn't a single natural-born toddler (or teenager for that matter) who is actually fit to serve in any position of the federal government with the exception of the armed forces (and even that is debatable). As for any limitation/restriction on the upper end of the age spectrum, there's honestly no "one size fits all" so why the need to limit it further? Rhetorical question.

We might also consider the requirement that presidents be native-born Americans, restricting the voters' freedom to elect a brilliant governor or senator to the high office because he or she was brought here at a the age of two.

Your term "native-born American" not to be confused with the constitutional restriction "natural-born citizen," which has a wholly different meaning. For instance, Rafael "Ted" Cruz was born in Canada and came to America as a toddler (and arguably still is one), and even he is qualified to run for president. Just my opinion, but we actually should have the leader of America be at least born in America versus allowing Canadian-born toddlers like Cruz to run for president. :)

Lots of things 'restrict the voters' freedom', like weak absentee ballot provisions, unlimited campaign funding by super-PACs, and censorship of social media or the press by self-defined rules of the media owners. An age limit at 67 or 75, forcibly retiring office holders before their 75th or 80th birthdays, could be more like a gift to the voters than a restriction on their imagined freedoms. It won't happen, but not because the principle of the thing subverts the democratic ideal.

As a "for instance," Donald Trump should definitely:

(1) be retired from political life by We the People and
(2) then convicted by some of the People,

although not necessarily in that order and "convicted" not necessarily limited to once and more likely than not, not once but multiple times and then sentenced by some of the People to (some kind of) captivity where his freedom is taken but he'll be gifted with a wonderful free job training program where the short-fingered vulgarian could learn how to use his grubby little hands for something besides stealing from We the People. :)

your proposal would undoubtedly make the COUNTING of votes much easier.

Liberal that I am I’d vote for a 90-year old Joe Biden over any Republican candidate.

I just see this more as a solution looking for a problem, notwithstanding all of the current examples provided here that might tend to prove otherwise.

As if growing up in the right decades is the only relevant experience necessary to govern a modern America. I know you don't believe that, Chris, but, geez Louise, man!

His point about emphathy for and understanding of ones constituents' lives is also good. Age is one factor but another and far more significant is the isolation of privilege and wealth, combined with a lack of emotional breadth and understanding. If an amendment about age limits is hard to imagine getting passed, try adding a wealth limit, or including a social service requirement that's a little more on the ground than just holding a public office.

Finally, if we are going to have all these creative amendments, there's no reason not to redefine the "lifetime" tenure of the federal judiciary. An amendment is an amendment, and the Justices can certainly be asked to step down at the same age as the presidents and the congressmen.

Wow. Just, wow! Presumptuous, anyone?