galaxy21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 04:52 PM
Original message |
Do you think there should be an age limit for the senate/presidency? |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 05:36 PM by galaxy21
I was just reading about Robert Byrd who's 91 now, and there are a lot of other senators who have guaranteed seats for life and will probably keep serving the rest of thier natural lives. And obviously there are still questions regarding Reagan's illness and whether he was showing signs of it while in office (some insist he wasn't, but one or two people were witness to him 'acting oddly')Also, McCain was insisting he go for two terms (meaning he would have been 80 when he left office if he had won)
Aside from the question of competency, I also think its difficult to make any new, younger stars in the party because all the older guys have all the high profile positions.
Do you think there should be an age limit? What should it be? 75? 80?
|
cobalt1999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You can't convince me in a country of 300 million there are some "irreplaceable" senators/congressmen.
Instead of a seat for life, throw them out after 3-4 terms.
|
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
10. Me too.. and what a money-saver it would be too.. |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 05:42 PM by SoCalDem
I would make : the house terms 4 years..limit 2 the senate 6...limit 2
NO PENSION for under 20- years consecutive service
2 house + 2 senate = 20
minimum age 30..maximum age 65
If it's "good enough" for the "private sector", it's good enough for government..and there are PLENTY of people who could/would do a great job
SCOTUS..minimum age 50.... max 70 term 10 years..with re-approval for another 10..and then buh-byee.. pension IF they serve both 10 yr terms consecutively
These people are public servants..with the emphasis on SERVANT..
Government should not be a LIFETIME gig..
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I think the voters ought to decide for themselves who is or is not fit for the office.
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I would hate to have lived in a country where William O. Douglas |
|
was retired due to age, or Teddy Kennedy, or even Robert Byrd.
I would, however, like to see a mechanism for removing anyone who is showing obvious signs of senility, something to be evaluated by a neuropsychiatrist, every two years for those over 65 and annually for those over 80.
The Senate is a place where wise old men should be welcome. However, it shouldn't be a nursing home for senile old men.
Y'all know who I'm talking about, too.
|
annarbor
(543 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. 'The Senate is a place where wise old men should be welcome ". |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 05:13 PM by annarbor
And women!
If there ever comes a time when we're able to serve long enough to be considered old :)
|
Fed_Up_Grammy
(923 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message |
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Nope, if the voters don't want 'em it's up to them. |
galaxy21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I can understand that arguement for a senator, but a president? |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 05:10 PM by galaxy21
If Reagan really was showing signs of his illness, that was an extremely dangerous situation. The man had nuclear codes.
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. There is a separate remedy for that particular scenario. |
|
It is unpleasant, but the president can be effectively removed from office by reason of medical emergency.
|
enlightenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. My flip side brethren is absolutely right - |
|
there is no reason to set term limits for elected positions. It might be useful to discuss the efficacy of maintaining life-time positions for the Supreme Court justices, since they're living a lot longer than the founders' ever thought they would. ;)
|
LSdemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message |
11. No, I oppose both artificial cut-offs as well as term limits |
|
Your Senator/President/Representative sucks? That's what elections are for.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Not an age limit but a provision for Congress to be able to demand physical and |
|
mental health screenings from medical entities other than the President's personal ones should a sitting President starts showing signs that he may no longer be competent to do the job. There is something close in the Constitution for removing a President for those reasons, however, there is no provision as how to get there. I believe this is why Congress is reluctant to implement that article in the Constitution. There needs to be a process so that it can be done without giving opposing political parties carte blanche to conduct a witch hunt.
|
norepubsin08
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-19-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message |
13. 69 for when the presidency ends and 74 for when a |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 09:46 AM
Response to Original message |