Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you think there should be an age limit for the senate/presidency?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. I prefer term limits
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (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..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. no
I think the voters ought to decide for themselves who is or is not fit for the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annarbor Donating Member (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 :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fed_Up_Grammy Donating Member (923 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. No !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (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. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSdemocrat Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norepubsin08 Donating Member (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
senate term ends
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC