One of my favorite movies is “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The story questions what local banker George Bailey’s hometown would have been like had he never lived.

Well, let’s imagine what America would be like if we had adopted an age–limit constitutional amendment in 2010.

After all, in nearly every occupation, there is an established age limit. Nearly all major labor contracts have an age–limit clause. But, if you are a federal employee there are exceptions to this rule, and at the highest levels — president, vice president, senators, congressmen, and justices on the Supreme Court.

Yes, the most powerful have exempted themselves from age limits, much like kings and queens. Royalty and the political elite can stay in power until their deaths.

We need an age–limit constitutional amendment. We do not need term–limits instead of age–limits unless we want 10,000 anonymous folks, known as staffers, controlling America. With the elected officials term–limited out, the staffers would be the kings and queens — if they are not already in some offices.

Does anyone really think that California Senator Diane Feinstein, who is 90, is running her office while representing the nation’s largest state. Staffers are not known; they are not held accountable as no one voted for them; and they have few ethical rules to abide by.

An age–limit amendment would be simple. Here is what it would look like:

It would require mandatory retirement for all federal government workers at the age of 80. This includes every branch of the federal government — executive, legislative, judicial — as well as their support staff. This would mean that if a president or vice president would turn 80 during their term in office, they would not be able to seek the office.

An age–limit amendment is a way to eliminate many of the major problems we have today. Imagine if we had a simple constitutional amendment in place already. Let’s say it started in 2010.

How would it have affected the executive branch?

The biggest change? We would not have Joe Biden as president. Why? He would have turned 80 during his term and would hence not have been allowed to run in 2020.

The octogenarian leader bungled the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. The Americans killed during that debacle would be alive today. Russia and Ukraine may not be at war today. Biden’s sanction strategy has been a failure as most of the world is not participating in it. America has spent tens of billions of dollars helping Ukraine and thousands of lives have been lost.

Maybe we would have a better relationship with China and Russia instead of merely bragging about our solid relations with our allies (who are supposed to like us).

America would not have to deal with former President Donald Trump running for president as he would be turning 80 during his second term and would be prohibited from getting on the ballot in 2024.

Both parties would be forced to find fresh faces for president unless a Democrat not named Biden beat Trump in 2020. Then he/she would be seeking re–election. Regardless, it would be a better situation than what we have today.

How would an age–limit amendment have affected the judicial branch?

We would not have Justice Amy Comey Barrett on the Supreme Court as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have been forced to retire from the bench. And former President Barack Obama would have been able to make the selection. That would mean — yes, you guessed it — we would not currently have Merrick Garland as the U.S. Attorney General either, as he would have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

There would also be no Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Anthony Kennedy would have been forced to retire in 2016 at the age of 80. Obama would have made the selection for his replacement, not Trump.

It is very unlikely that Roe vs Wade would have been reversed, nor would there have been any changes in the use of race in college admissions.

How would an age–limit amendment have affected the legislative branch?

Our current political polarization would be lessened. It is largely due to this fact that the U.S. credit rating has been downgraded by the Fitch rating agency.

There is no way a younger or 2010 Senator Mitch McConnell, now 81, would have allowed the Democrats to win the Senate in 2022. McConnell would not have allowed unwise strategies in his party like proposing partisan changes in Social Security and Medicare prior to the elections. He also would not have taken a victory on the abortion issue per the Supreme Court decision to be turned into an albatross around the necks of GOP Senate candidates causing their predictable defeat. Both were unprecedented acts of political malpractice.

As a result, Congress would be totally controlled by the Republicans today and very capable of smoothly passing legislation. Instead, we have gridlock.

And there is no way a 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now 83, would have failed to protect the Capitol building — one of the primary responsibilities of any Speaker of the House.

As a result, we would not have had January 6. A younger Pelosi would have heeded the incessant warnings and increased security. We would have saved tens of millions of dollars on investigations, a second Trump impeachment and the deaths and trials of Americans.

Yes, America would be quite different. I would argue far better.

In “It’s a Wonderful Life” imagining what George Bailey’s hometown would be had he not been born was ugly. For America in 2023, some would say, imagining a government with no octogenarian influence or control would be “a wonderful” political arrangement.