But if you’re the kind of person who argues against term limits by asking the person you’re talking to to visualize lobbyists’ influence as a three dimensional metric space, you’re also the kind of person who knows that age based term limits are absolutely a violation of human rights and an example of ageism.
So even if we set aside the fact that it would take a constitutional amendment to do just because the constitution is what legally defines the roles and requirements of federal office, it’d have to be a constitutional amendment because agism violates the 14th.
I’m not against the idea in principle, of course. Democracy itself often feels like one of those late night “There’s gotta be a better way“ commercials. The problem is that their central assumption derived from the enlightenment that man was a rational actor who could both be trusted to work in his own interest and (at least amongst the noble and wealthy) self-sacrifice for the good of all.
Of course it's ageism. But there are certain jobs that require retirement because of age related problems creating critical issues. I don't think we should be politely standing by as someone with Alzheimer's is in a position to affect leadership of the country. They should have an age limit, just like the military. (which is 62)
As to whether it would require a constitutional amendment, I'm not sure. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But term limits would likely require it if age does. We're not getting one easier than the other. If we do put in the effort let's make sure we're doing the right thing, not some corporate lobby astroturf thing.
And yes the extent to which our government is a gentleman's agreement has become glaringly obvious in my lifetime.
There are some fundamental issues with our democracy that I think need addressed, but I don't think age restrictions or term limits would do anything useful. There are already mechanisms in place that are supposed to handle the case of age-related incapacity - these need strengthened, but that doesn't require an amendment. The other problem I hear this is supposed to address is out-of-touch representatives - which should be addressed by strengthening our voting process. Reverse Citizens United, make it easier for young people to vote, and you'll see an improvement.
Getting states to use ranked choice voting would go a long way and can be done today.
That would be a massive improvement. I was thinking along the lines of expanded voting time and better remote voting options for college students and the like; but ranked choice would be a seed change.
Clearly we should drop the minimum age too. I do mean allow literal children to hold office; it's ageist to do otherwise.
Well, minimum age requirements are constitutional because they’re literally in the constitution. I’m about as far from a constitutional literalist as you can possibly get (I think it’s a deeply flawed and outdated document), but at least as of right now it’s literally the foundation of the US legal system.
There are a number of reasons to be concerned about adding additional requirements on top of the current set of requirements. The whole Trump thing highlighted the degree to which the entire system is built around an assumption of good faith, and I’m more concerned about that than the fact that DiFi has no business being in the senate at her age. The problem, as I see it, isn’t all of the old people. It’s systemic issues that go to the heart of this particular form of government. I mean, Reagan didn’t know where he was for most of his second term, but the real damage he did to the country has nothing to do with his cognitive decline.
I completely agree with you on term limits.
But if you’re the kind of person who argues against term limits by asking the person you’re talking to to visualize lobbyists’ influence as a three dimensional metric space, you’re also the kind of person who knows that age based term limits are absolutely a violation of human rights and an example of ageism.
So even if we set aside the fact that it would take a constitutional amendment to do just because the constitution is what legally defines the roles and requirements of federal office, it’d have to be a constitutional amendment because agism violates the 14th.
I’m not against the idea in principle, of course. Democracy itself often feels like one of those late night “There’s gotta be a better way“ commercials. The problem is that their central assumption derived from the enlightenment that man was a rational actor who could both be trusted to work in his own interest and (at least amongst the noble and wealthy) self-sacrifice for the good of all.
Of course it's ageism. But there are certain jobs that require retirement because of age related problems creating critical issues. I don't think we should be politely standing by as someone with Alzheimer's is in a position to affect leadership of the country. They should have an age limit, just like the military. (which is 62)
As to whether it would require a constitutional amendment, I'm not sure. I'm not a constitutional scholar. But term limits would likely require it if age does. We're not getting one easier than the other. If we do put in the effort let's make sure we're doing the right thing, not some corporate lobby astroturf thing.
And yes the extent to which our government is a gentleman's agreement has become glaringly obvious in my lifetime.
There are some fundamental issues with our democracy that I think need addressed, but I don't think age restrictions or term limits would do anything useful. There are already mechanisms in place that are supposed to handle the case of age-related incapacity - these need strengthened, but that doesn't require an amendment. The other problem I hear this is supposed to address is out-of-touch representatives - which should be addressed by strengthening our voting process. Reverse Citizens United, make it easier for young people to vote, and you'll see an improvement.
Getting states to use ranked choice voting would go a long way and can be done today.
That would be a massive improvement. I was thinking along the lines of expanded voting time and better remote voting options for college students and the like; but ranked choice would be a seed change.
Clearly we should drop the minimum age too. I do mean allow literal children to hold office; it's ageist to do otherwise.
Well, minimum age requirements are constitutional because they’re literally in the constitution. I’m about as far from a constitutional literalist as you can possibly get (I think it’s a deeply flawed and outdated document), but at least as of right now it’s literally the foundation of the US legal system.
There are a number of reasons to be concerned about adding additional requirements on top of the current set of requirements. The whole Trump thing highlighted the degree to which the entire system is built around an assumption of good faith, and I’m more concerned about that than the fact that DiFi has no business being in the senate at her age. The problem, as I see it, isn’t all of the old people. It’s systemic issues that go to the heart of this particular form of government. I mean, Reagan didn’t know where he was for most of his second term, but the real damage he did to the country has nothing to do with his cognitive decline.