this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
419 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19238 readers
3339 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

While I like the idea, I can’t imagine it would pass a constitutional test. However, an age limit that kicks in only after a person has been in an elected position for X years probably could. This would allow an 81 year old that had never held office to run for the first time and not be discriminated based on age.

[–] corvaxL 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It won't survive a court challenge, as the Supreme Court already ruled on this back in 1995 in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The ruling says that states can't add additional eligibility requirements to be elected to or otherwise serve in federal office beyond what the constitution lists.

[–] Bookmeat 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let's think outside the box. Make all elected officials felons after two terms :)

[–] Maggoty 1 points 6 months ago

Being a felon is not a bar to federal office.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

You act like this Supreme Court is above completely throwing precedent out the window.

[–] littlewonder 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If only the Constitution was amendable.

...

Welp, back to our FPTP hellscape reality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You think the US is a hellscape? Wow.

[–] littlewonder 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think that one of the greatest things about the Constitution, the idea that it's dynamic, has been lost to the result of FPTP--this two-party lock that won't allow for any amendments. We now treat the document like a religious text instead of a tool we can and should update to be relevant and responsive when absolutely necessary.

But go off about how much I hate this country or whatever. I'm clearly very apathetic about its vision.

[–] Bookmeat 1 points 6 months ago

IMHO, corporate social media has ruined American culture. It has amplified detrimental voices to society and at the heart of America's woes is a rotting culture.

[–] dezmd 0 points 6 months ago

I always worry that putting so much on FPTP as the problem is going to backfire. I open to trying to move away from it, but it does make it a little cheaper for dark money to invest in a candidate's image when they only have to maintain a strong showing vs overwhelming the 50% total tally.

It didn't keep the UK from Brexit and the EU is moving to the right. FPTP may not the game changer we imagine, it may simply be a 'grass is always greener' scenario.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So you’re saying there is a constitutional provision to prevent young people from running for office but not old people?

Given that on average teenagers are, according to any testable criteria, smarter and saner than old people, maybe the constitution needs to be amended. Septuagenarians shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone run the fucking country.