this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
419 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2793 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 54 points 6 months ago (4 children)

TL;DR; they can't run if they would turn 81in the last year of their term.

The headline sounds nice but this law barely does anything to address the issue. Legislators also expect this law to be overturned so it's more of a vague gesture than it is an enforcable measure

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago

It would disqualify the 2 major presidential candidates if it was applied nationally, as well as 50 sitting members of Congress (assuming they all wanted to run)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hell yeah, good job North Dakota!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We did it! Wasn’t sure if it’d happen or not.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You kinda didn't though? The age limit is 81. Retirement is 65. 16 years. That's someones childhood. That's longer than some peoples careers. Gotta start somewhere I guess. Impressed it happened, disappointed at the fine print. Nice headline though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Gotta start somewhere, yes.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago

Needs to be nationwide, top to bottom

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Now try to get them to pass a minimum age for marriage.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

They have one; it's 16 with parental consent, 18 otherwise.

https://www.findlaw.com/state/north-dakota-law/north-dakota-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

The four states that don't have a minimum marriage age are California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma; and all of them require parental consent or a court order for under-18s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#Underage_marriage

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Term limits for congress and the senate are also needed , make it so that you can not serve more than 2 terms in any state or federal office. This would reduce the influence of career politicians and allow fresh ideas to be tried.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

It would also limit effectiveness in an important and difficult job that requires potentially years of procedural understanding and relationship building to pass impactful legislation.

A company where every employee was “junior” would waste a lot of time and money.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

This. I have no idea why it's a popular trope to just talk about "term limits" as if it would actually solve anything. For some reason, actual expertise at governing is frowned on, but I doubt the very people arguing for term limits would ever argue for term limits for a plumber, a dentist, a mechanic, a roofer...anyone up for having their teeth drilled by an "outsider"? I know I'm not.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I have strongly mixed feelings on this. Perhaps we should intact term limits, but probably not as short as usually proposed and probably paired with something to limit outside influence. The common claim I hear is that with a more junior Congress they would be even more reliant on the parts of "government" that stick around longer, like lobbyists.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The call for term limits usually comes from the people who want (need?) government to be impotent and dysfunctional - typically echoing messages that very wealthy capitalists have injected into the public discourse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through...

The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Except it would be reducing the influence of career politicians by increasing the influence of corporate plants. It would make political offices even more of a revolving door than they already are. Would also increase the number of people just going rogue on their last term because “what are you gonna do, not elect me again?”

A whole lot of other shit would need to change first before implementing term limits would make any sense to do. At the very least overturning the Citizens United decision and some sort of mechanism to help ensure that politicians actually govern according to the platform they run on. And arguably both of those things would do a lot more to help our current problems than term limits would…which means neither is ever going to happen.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

No. Absolutely not. The problem here is age, not politics as a career. This is how you get monolithic parties where the internal politics between unelected party officials and billionaires run the country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Voters in North Dakota approved a ballot measure that sets a maximum age for representing the state in Congress, The Associated Press said on Tuesday.

Experts said they believed North Dakota was the first state to impose such a requirement on members of Congress, though they said the measure is likely to be challenged in court.

The measure provided a rare glimpse into how one state’s voters think about age at a time when questions over the effectiveness of older political leaders have been part of the national conversation.

As a practical matter, the rule does not pose a threat to the state’s three current federal lawmakers, all Republicans, who range in age from 47 to 67.

In 2022, Mr. Hendrix led a successful effort to set term limits for governor and state legislators.

A Supreme Court case in 1995 established that states cannot add eligibility restrictions beyond those in the Constitution.


The original article contains 338 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

I don't care how old a person is... I care if they're sound of mind. We need to start having cognitive testing done before someone can run

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're not allowed to be an airline pilot over the age of 67. If that's too old to command a plane, it's too old to command a country.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean... I could see quick reflexes coming into play for a pilot more than for a president though

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Bush wouldn't have dodged that shoe without quick reflexes. Haha

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

The military retires officers of all ranks at 62. If you're too old to sit in an office and command a division, you're too old to sit in the oval office and command the entire military.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

That'll never happen, too easy to fudge. Worse, as medical technology improves lifespans increase. By 2100 (if we're still here) we could potentially have people 150 fucking years old or more in politics that started at 30. You think some old, rich bastard 50 years out of touch is bad, wait until that old, rich bastard is 100 years out of touch. Or 200. Or fuck knows how long we could drag this shit out for if you're rich and powerful enough to get the longevity tech, medicine, etc.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Age comes with detriments. We're better off without them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's still too old. Needs to be 70-75.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

While I like the idea, I can’t imagine it would pass a constitutional test. However, an age limit that kicks in only after a person has been in an elected position for X years probably could. This would allow an 81 year old that had never held office to run for the first time and not be discriminated based on age.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It won't survive a court challenge, as the Supreme Court already ruled on this back in 1995 in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The ruling says that states can't add additional eligibility requirements to be elected to or otherwise serve in federal office beyond what the constitution lists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's think outside the box. Make all elected officials felons after two terms :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

You act like this Supreme Court is above completely throwing precedent out the window.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

If only the Constitution was amendable.

...

Welp, back to our FPTP hellscape reality.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So you’re saying there is a constitutional provision to prevent young people from running for office but not old people?

Given that on average teenagers are, according to any testable criteria, smarter and saner than old people, maybe the constitution needs to be amended. Septuagenarians shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone run the fucking country.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

While I think mandatory retirement ages need to be discussed across the board on all three branches, it's a cheap shot and unconstitutional

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why is it unconstitutional? We have age minimums. If you are a commercial pilot there are age limits.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because right now there are no age limitations in the Constitution for elected officials. A state cannot change that, it needs a constitutional amendment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What? I thought you had to be 35+ to be POTUS. Am I wrong?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

You do, but that's in the constitution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How's it unconstitutional? There are lower age limits to all of these offices too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Can't read the link and how no desire to search around for a way around the paywall today.

load more comments
view more: next ›