Previous post
Next post
We all see it, right? There are some politicians in the House, Senate and Oval Office who have “gone ’round the bend”. They are “non compos mentis”. They aren’t right. Alzheimer’s, stroke, arterial problems, a multitude of age-related issues. No one can deny what we see. Congressman John James (R-MI) has proposed an upper age limit for certain elected offices. Nice try. I like Mr. James, but this is a really, really bad idea.
According to Fox News:
A freshman House Republican is calling on Congress to give serious thought to imposing age limits for federal elected officials, with new legislation aimed at injecting new blood into Capitol Hill.
Rep. John James, R-Mich., introduced a resolution this week aimed at pushing lawmakers to amend the Constitution and establish an upper age limit for eligibility to be president, vice president or a member of Congress.
If passed, it would call on Congress to work on a Constitutional amendment to stop anyone from running for those offices “if at any time during the term the person will be 75 years of age or older,” according to bill text obtained by Fox News Digital.
I certainly sympathize with James desire to have colleagues whose minds have not taken a turn. It had to gall James to watch Craven Joe Biden disrespect a fellow helicopter pilot yesterday at the Medal of Honor Ceremony:
Captain Taylor, the Medal of Honor recipient, is a Vietnam veteran who is 81, a year older than Craven Joe. Oof. Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell couldn’t run a microwave, let alone make decisions about the future of the country. It’s not just the Presidency and the Senate. The House is full of people over 80 years of age:
Of the 435 current House lawmakers, 15 are 80 or older.
Those serving in the House who are age 80 or older include California Democrat Grace Napolitano, 86; D.C. Democrat delegate Eleanor Norton, 86; Kentucky Republican Hal Rogers, 85; New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell Jr., 86; California Democrat Maxine Waters, 84; Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer, 84; South Carolina Democrat Jim Clyburn, 83; California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, 83; Illinois Democrat Danny Davis, 81; Texas Republican John Carter, 82; California Democrat Anna Eshoo, 80; Florida Democrat Fredrica Wilson, 80; Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, 80; North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx, 80; and Texas Republican Kay Granger, 80.
Most of the Congressweenies I don’t know much about. Auntie Maxine, Nancy Pelosi and Rosa DeLauro all should have retired 20 years ago. Congressman James says:
“Our founders didn’t intend for these to be lifetime appointments in the legislature. They didn’t intend for legislators to die in office or to get doggone close. They didn’t intend for a politician to line their pockets, to gain decades of seniority, and get to be millionaires in office either.”
James dodged a question about how it would affect former President Donald Trump, who is 77 and running for another White House term – and who James has also endorsed.
Bless James heart, but it’s not about chronological age. It is about cognition and mental agility. It’s about people like Mitch McConnell papering over their health issues to keep a death grip on power. Light-headed, my Aunt Fanny. Dehydration?
James is right. Our Founders did not intend for public servants to be career politicians, gaining their wealth through political connections. It is imperative that the voters and the press stay vigilant. Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell have both had questions raised about their health since before their last elections. In California and Kentucky, both the Party Machine and the Press protected and covered for both politicians.
I will not support any upper age limit on public servants. I WILL SUPPORT Cognitive Tests for all politicians. You can be quite young and have cognition issues. Like Senator Fetterman is only 54 years old. That should be the prime of life. This is not prime:
'EVEN JOE BIDEN WAS CRINGING': @seanhannity reacts after Sen. John Fetterman refers to Biden as a 'collapsed bridge' during introduction speech. pic.twitter.com/aNlLGX5lxF
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 20, 2023
That “collapsed bridge” is proud of his “infarcture” bill.
There are people in their 90″s who are sharp and up-to-speed on fast moving modern life. There are also 30 year olds in public life that are not trustworthy (AOC). I can support passing laws for upper ae limits. Cognitive tests, oh hale yeah. Cognitive tests for everyone. Right?
Featured Composite: Scecon/flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons/Ulrich Joho/flickr.com/cropped/Creative Commons
therealguyfaux says: All right then, what’s the objective standard? Because what you DON’T want is some panel of doctors who might be, y’know, jes’ a smidge biased and would tend to disqualify one party more than the other– and at THIS stage, we know how THAT would work.
Even a fairly administered cognitive test would be inadequate. Oh, yes, Fetterman, Feinstein, and Biden would almost certainly fail. McConnell might pass it, though, if he just didn’t have an “episode” during the test itself. (Note that the test is also just a very tiny snapshot. A sufferer from epilepsy is quite cognizant – except during an episode.)
AOC, Mad Maxine? Would pass with flying colors. They are quite cognizant – like any other successful criminal mind. They know exactly what they are doing, feathering their nests.
Hate_me says: I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of no upper age limits.
I’m more mixed on requiring cognitive tests. It’s like the idea of marksmanship/safety exams for gun ownership – it sounds reasonable until you get into the specifics of who is designing/administering the tests.
If the voters want a moron (apparently, many do), let them vote in a moron (the media tells me they did do fairly, but many questions remain unanswered).
Liz says: I don’t understand the problem with age limits.
In the event of an extreme outlier 90 year old who still has his/her faculties, there are a lot of younger people just as smart so we’ll have to go without his or her great ideas. They can serve their community in other ways.
I’m also for term limits. The (potential) benefits of experience have been far outweighed by the drawbacks of institutionalized corruption under the current system.
Hate_me says: “All power corrupts…” is a very poor yardstick by which to measure, and term limits force out the good as well as the bad.
That 90yo Senator may not be smarter than his 40yo junior, but (though it’s not everything) experience truly does matter. The best man deserves the job, and the best is decided by the voters – it’s that simple and any arbitrary obstacles are an affront to everything this nation stands for.
Liz says: We don’t need a “yardstick” to “measure”.
We are staring at unmitigated, insurmountable levels of corruption RIGHT NOW. Levels that would not be possible with term limits. The only real solution is to turn off the source.
Per age, why not a 12 year old politician? Why assign any age limits at all? Everything I ever needed to know I learned in kindergarten (not really, but whatever). Maybe toddlers have some great ideas…or wait, it’s their handlers (just like the hypothetical 90 year old).
Why do they retire airline pilots at a certain age? Why do they retire commanders and also replace them after a certain timeframe? But if one wants to legislate policy and make military decisions as a civilian, one can go on unless and until the lights shut off. When results matter more than theory (aka real world consequences) this is a problem
GWB says: term limits force out the good as well as the bad
So what? Each representative represents 760,000 people. I’m sure you can find a decent (or Democrat) replacement in that large a pool of talent, say, once every 12 years.
experience truly does matter
The only real experience they get is in manipulating the rules of their house so they and theirs can gain and hold onto power and position. And other expertise they gain only serves to make for much longer and more burdensome laws.
The best man deserves the job
Bullcarp. The person who can convince the voters they will represent them best is who should get the job. NONE of them deserve it. NONE. The only “deserve” I might allow is strict adherence to the Constitution.
any arbitrary obstacles
Like… the age limits that already exist in the Constitution?
Hate_me says: “I’m sure you can find a decent (or Democrat) replacement in that large a pool of talent, say, once every 12 years.” (sorry, can’t seem to italicize from my phone)
– Decent isn’t the same as good, and it’s a far cry from great. Having other viable options is not the same as having all the options. Even with POTUS, I don’t like term limits (though FDR was far the lesser Roosevelt). The litmus test should be the individual voters, not bureaucratic red tape.
“ The only real experience they get is in manipulating the rules of their house so they and theirs can gain and hold onto power and position.”
– As I grew more familiar with the military bureaucracy, I became much more effective at accomplishing my mission; no corruption, no personal bias, just a more effective soldier. A politician more experienced at navigating the nuances of Foggy Bottom means a more effective representative for their constituents. Can this be abused for personal benefit? Sure, and in both cases – but that’s why our system was built with checks and balances. Should we be better at implementing those checks? Absolutely. That’s not done by hamstringing the voter.
“ The person who can convince the voters they will represent them best is who should get the job.”
– Absolutely. And, once that unknown quantity becomes a known one, it should be purely up to the voters whether they deserve to continue in that role. Stupid voters deserve stupid reps.
“ Like… the age limits that already exist in the Constitution?”
– A bit tangential, but, yes. I do believe these are arbitrary and should be removed, as well – it is a living document, after all. I’d even be open to possibly removing the natural-born requirement for POTUS, as well – it should be open to all legal citizens (though I’ve no one particular in mind that I would advocate for, at present).
Hate_me says: unknown quality*
Fuck autocorrect
GWB says: It is about cognition and mental agility.
I disagree. If that’s who the people want, then that’s who represents them.
to keep a death grip on power.
Here’s the real problem.
both the Party Machine and the Press protected and covered for both politicians
Yes, they did. But it’s the voters’ fault. The information is out there. But the electorate is lazy and doesn’t desire to be informed and to carry out their duties as “we the people.” And they are often happy with the bribes the politicians send their way.
I can support passing laws for upper ae limits.
Typo? You just said you didn’t.
I don’t even think cognitive tests are appropriate, unless demanded by their constituents. But that would entirely be a matter of satisfying the constituency, not of law.*
What there needs to be is term limits for all elected officials at the national level. (And I wouldn’t have a problem if the same amendment limited SC Justices, as well.) This would disrupt the regime within Congress where rules reward folks who have been there forever. And at least the Machines would have to work harder at raising up new candidates every so often.
(* BTW, I’m sure you’re aware of the case law about anyone imposing further limits on candidacy, beyond those found in the Constitution. It’s a very big No-Go area.)
Oh, and repeal the 17th Amendment. (And still term-limit Senators.)
10 Comments