Age seems to have little to do with maturity. Although you could not quantify "maturity," I would suspect that if you could, the correlation would be very low.

Age restrictions, as a general rule, are kind of silly. What one person can psychologically and mentally handle at 20, others cannot do at 40.

The age restriction on the presidency is sort of unnecessary. It's unlikely that anyone under the age of 35 could stockpile the financial and other resources necessary to run a vialbe campaign. Although, it is in our Constitution, and as such, is difficult to change and reflected a different age.

It's something that's so trivial that it's almost meaningless.

__________________
Weiner.

Sorry, but I dont want anyone in the same age group as me (20-30) running this country. True maturity at this age is a rarity and most people of this age group cannot possibly have much experience or education. 35 and older seems about right.

That's one of the reasons we have elections, to make a judgment on the fitness of the candidate, and not one based on age. But, although there are a lot of people who are still in their teens who are more INTELLIGENT than a lot of older people they, by definition cannot be WISER owing to a lack of experience in life.
I believe the decision-making process relies heavily on past experience as well as innate intelligence.

OTOH, I also feel there should be a MAXIMUM age limit, mainly because a lot of older people can get quite set in their ways to the point of impairing their judgment.
Something like an age range of 30 to 65 would work for me.That's a bit of a broad statement there. While what you say is true, the reverse is equally valid in many people. I've seen some extremely bright and sensible people who are in their 20s, and I've seen a lot of drooling morons in that group too. And the same holds true for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 year-olds.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.