960
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
960 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18074 readers
3227 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
No person shall hold an elected or appointed position past the age of 10 years younger than average life expectancy, to be updated each census year. A special election is held to replace the person when this age is reached in the case of elected office. A new appointment required in 30 days for appointed positions.
I like this, but I'd drop the special election in favor of disqualifying candidates who would age out during their term.
Or just make it so the age is a limit for the start of their term, and if they age out, they simply can't run again.
Oh ya, that's even better.
One of the few issues where you can legit say "both parties are as bad as each other".
Half these people should be retired.
Because it isn't right vs left, it's various flavors of have vs the have nots. Just half the have nots (probably more) are stupid as shit, according to the other half. Then we just bicker while they fucking fleece our dumbasses.
Keep saying it. Everyone agrees and yet congress doesn't enact it 🤔 I'm just glad the oligarchs understand the will of the people better than us rabble!
Good idea. Much better than hard age limits as it may actually convince the boomers in charge to improve overall quality of life.
Disaster happens, child mortality goes up a lot somehow, average life expectancy plummets below 25, no one is eligible for any Senate or House office 👀
I think our rules about senate qualification would be the least of our worries at that point!
Well then the supposed Republican mission of "small government" should be accomplished!
Well, then we update the law.
Maybe they would've done more to prevent the sudden drop in life expectancy. Then again they would also pass any law that could extend life expectancy. Like making it illegal to pull the plug, outlawing dnr, etc.
They would pass laws and sue over how the number is calculated.
Already you can be removed if you are unable to carry out your duties. It is the will to do it that is lacking. I don't think tying terms to an average life expectancy is reasonable. You could have a pretty wide range across states for instance and people would constantly sue over how it should be calculated.
I think a better angle would be to just set term limits. Set them longer for congressmen if people want.
I disagree. Maybe if their grasp on power was tied to the average life expectancy in their continuency they might actually make an effort to improve it. Sure they'll sue but, I think it's worth trying.
I think most of the issues in the world right now are caused by career politicians who's only interested is getting re-elected.
The Logan's Jog Amendment.
Can we put crystals on the palms of all elected officials?