Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post

    You have to be 35 to run for President, is my point. How would a maximum limit be unconstitutional but not a minimum limit?



    Again, honestly asking here, not arguing.
    The minimum limit is written into the constitution, the maximum limit is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post

    You have to be 35 to run for President, is my point. How would a maximum limit be unconstitutional but not a minimum limit?

    Again, honestly asking here, not arguing.
    Because withholding something because of a minimum age is a much more stable precedent than removing it because of a maximum age.

    I'm sure this has been litigated plenty in other contexts though. It would not be new ground.

    I'm all for mandatory retirement. It wouldn't just remove the immediately mentally decrepit. Let's say, over 40. Kidding! 42. It would push ages for appointments and nominees down across the board since tick tock mother****er.


    Last edited by Kepler; 09-09-2022, 10:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    1. Not for fundamental political rights.
    2. The line between child and adult is well established in law while the line between adult and vegetable is not.
    You have to be 35 to run for President, is my point. How would a maximum limit be unconstitutional but not a minimum limit?



    Again, honestly asking here, not arguing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Swansong View Post

    Would it? We have minimum ages well above the age of legal adulthood.


    (honestly don't know)
    1. Not for fundamental political rights.
    2. The line between child and adult is well established in law while the line between adult and vegetable is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    To be fair it would be completely unconstitutional.
    Would it? We have minimum ages well above the age of legal adulthood.


    (honestly don't know)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by bronconick View Post

    They'd probably have to ram through a Constitutional Amendment, since those 90 year old farkers would immediately whine to the Supreme Court.
    To be fair it would be completely unconstitutional.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    They'd probably have to ram through a Constitutional Amendment, since those 90 year old farkers would immediately whine to the Supreme Court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    God, make it so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deutsche Gopher Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by French Rage View Post
    "Because a lot of money it’s going to trees. Don’t we have enough trees around here?”"
    That guy should be receiving adult day care. Jesus

    instead he’s the preferred candidate for the nazis .

    Leave a comment:


  • French Rage
    replied
    "Because a lot of money it’s going to trees. Don’t we have enough trees around here?”"

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View Post

    Yup. It was funny (in the sad way) that McConnell described the GOP woes in the senate races not just because of lower quality candidates but also because the election are “just different, they’re statewide.”
    So sad when the voters choose their representatives rather than the other way around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Behold the power of gerrymandering.
    Yup. It was funny (in the sad way) that McConnell described the GOP woes in the senate races not just because of lower quality candidates but also because the election are “just different, they’re statewide.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View Post

    So Roe pushed the Senate +12ish and only pushed the House +3ish
    Behold the power of gerrymandering.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Latest 538 Dem odds:

    63% chance of Senate
    22% chance of House
    So Roe pushed the Senate +12ish and only pushed the House +3ish

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Latest 538 Dem odds:

    63% chance of Senate
    22% chance of House

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X