What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spartanforlife4 said:
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.”
Click to expand...

So sad when the voters choose their representatives rather than the other way around.
 
Swansong said:
Would it? We have minimum ages well above the age of legal adulthood.


(honestly don't know)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Swansong said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 motherfucker.
 
Last edited:
Swansong said:
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.
Click to expand...

The minimum limit is written into the constitution, the maximum limit is not.
 
SJHovey said:
The minimum limit is written into the constitution, the maximum limit is not.
Click to expand...
This.

There are four minimum ages in the Constitution: 18 for voting (26th Amendment), 25 for the House (Article I), 30 for the Senate (Article I), 35 for President (Article II).

The only way to add a maximum age is by Amendment.
 
Jimjamesak said:
The only way to add a maximum age is by Amendment.
Click to expand...

There are maximum ages for state judges. I don't know if there are any maximum ages for other state office holders (Governor, State Senator, etc).

Apparently the Senate (of all places) passed a bill in 1954 making 75 the maximum age for a federal judge, but it did not become law. Given The Olds continue to grow older and larger as a percentage of the population, I think we missed our chance to be rid of them, er, us.

The fierce protection of turf by the senile combined with the idea that the voters can vote out a decrepit incumbent (naively based on the idea that voters actually choose their Members) probably make this impossible. FTL and scoot.
 
Last edited:
Slap Shot said:
Are term limits off the table?
Click to expand...

Term limits have their own problems, at least for legislatures, by concentrating even more power in lobbyists. I would support term limits along with banning all political bribery.

I saw an interesting idea for SCOTUS. Each President gets one appointment every Congress (i.e., every two years), regardless of how many sitting judges retire or not. Justices can no longer time their exits to create new openings, and also won't feel they are trapped when the President is an ideological enemy. While a craven SML (cough, Mitch) can still stop an appointment, they cannot pass an extra appointment to the next President. It would help calm down the SCOTUS confirmation process, at least a little.

Also, these are not necessarily long term systemic problems. The GOP won't persist as a Nazi party hampering democracy indefinitely. It will either succeed, in which case we have way bigger problems than court composition, or it will fail and reform around democratic republican ideals again, and probably leave a nasty stench on conservatism for a generation or more.

We lasted for 250 years during which a lot of very sh-tty people were both inside government and also in the private sector attacking and abusing government. This is an inflection point, but inflection points are by definition eventually over -- one way or the other. This is one reason I support aggressive actions like +6 SCOTUS justices. The GOP will not always be demonic, it will either explode into open terrorism (it is close, now) and be put down with all available force (this country is and always will be run by and for the rich, and civil war is terrible for them), or splinter and then recoalesce as a non-cancerous, normal right wing idiot party as in the days of Reagan. We need to get through right now. Time and social forces will take us where they will after that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top