Time for age limits and term limits!!

[Stillwater Townie]

Once again, forget term limits. People in Congress aren't going to vote themselves out of a job by requiring term limits. Also, there is hardly any political demand or votes for it. Voters won't even vote out those very rare politicians who promise to stay for only so many terms and then break their promise.

 

[Backin82]

We have minimum age limits for driving cars, voting, purchasing firearms, purchasing tobacco, drinking alcohol, running for president, signing up for websites, and many, many other things, because we recognize that age can be a meaningful metric for participation and expression. If we're going to use age as a criteria for participation in certain things, then I see no problem creating maximum ages for certain things as well.

 

[Pokey]

I’ve always appreciated the way some ethnic groups traditionally care for their elders. In these times of increasingly discriminatory behavior the last thing we need in this country is another pissing contest over advancing age. If age is a problem in Congress vote them out. If age is a problem to you in general, take a leap creep!

 

[CowboyJD]

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 2),

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3).

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Term limits or maximum age limits by statute is probably going to be an unconstitutional expansion/restriction on the qualifications of U.S. Senators or Reps.

If you want age or term limits, probably going to have to be by amendment to the Constitution (like term limits for the President were done).

 

[Backin82]

Term limits or maximum age limits by statute is probably going to be an unconstitutional expansion/restriction on the qualifications of U.S. Senators or Reps.

If you want age or term limits, probably going to have to be by amendment to the Constitution (like term limits for the President were done).

I'm curious why we accept minimum ages, but balk at maximum ages. They are rooted in the same reasons.

 

[CowboyJD]

I'm curious why we accept minimum ages, but balk at maximum ages. They are rooted in the same reasons.

All I was doing was citing the Constitution and pointing out that there are no term or age limits in those articles and the Constitution had to be amended to enact term limits for the President (whose qualifications are actually quite similar in language to the constitutional qualifications for the other positions).

I wasn't making an opinion statement regarding societal values, I was making a statement of fact.

Now in my opinion regarding societal values, we accept minimum ages, but balk at maximum ages primarily because of our perceptions and societal values about aging.

Minimum ages are rooted in a perceived lack of maturity and mental development of youth while the perception of society is that as we age, we become more mature/responsible and become wiser.

You say that "we recognize that age can be a meaningful metric for participation and expression"....but we as a society only recognize and accept it as a one way metric.....the older you are, the more mature, responsible, and wise you are.

We have presumed lack of competence and capacity for the young that has been enacted in statute, but any alleged incompetence or incapacity for persons above that statutory presumption must be established by evidence rather than a presumption of the law. The laws doing that are an expression of societal values regarding aging.

 

[Backin82]

All I was doing was citing the Constitution and pointing out that there are no term or age limits in those articles and the Constitution had to be amended to enact term limits for the President (whose qualifications are actually quite similar in language to the constitutional qualifications for the other positions).

I wasn't making an opinion statement regarding societal values, I was making a statement of fact.

Now in my opinion regarding societal values, we accept minimum ages, but balk at maximum ages primarily because of our perceptions and societal values about aging.

Minimum ages are rooted in a perceived lack of maturity and mental development of youth while the perception of society is that as we age, we become more mature/responsible and become wiser.

You say that "we recognize that age can be a meaningful metric for participation and expression"....but we as a society only recognize and accept it as a one way metric.....the older you are, the more mature, responsible, and wise you are.

We have presumed lack of competence and capacity for the young that has been enacted in statute, but any alleged incompetence or incapacity for persons above that statutory presumption must be established by evidence rather than a presumption of the law. The laws doing that are an expression of societal values regarding aging.

Thanks for sharing! The latter part of your post is what I was driving at. I recognize the current system. I'm curious if you (or others) think we should give consideration to maximum ages based on established evidence of cognitive decline, physical health concerns, etc...

Personally, I think it should at least be discussed at a national level, and that includes for things like operating motor vehicles and other regulated activities, and yes - even holding political offices.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thanks for sharing! The latter part of your post is what I was driving at. I recognize the current system. I'm curious if you (or others) think we should give consideration to maximum ages based on established evidence of cognitive decline, physical health concerns, etc...

Personally, I think it should at least be discussed at a national level, and that includes for things like operating motor vehicles and other regulated activities, and yes - even holding political offices.

No, I do not think there should be statutorily presumed ages of incompetence or incapacity based upon maximum ages.

I am good with a society that doesn't grant certain rights until reaching a presumed age of competence even though some younger than the statutory age of majority/consent might be responsible enough to exercise those rights.

IMO, it is a completely different proposition to take away rights from individuals once they have obtained them simply because they reach a certain age. Now if we are talking about more frequent licensure testing, etc as we age, I might be okay with that.

 

[Pokey]

Thanks for sharing! The latter part of your post is what I was driving at. I recognize the current system. I'm curious if you (or others) think we should give consideration to maximum ages based on established evidence of cognitive decline, physical health concerns, etc...

Personally, I think it should at least be discussed at a national level, and that includes for things like operating motor vehicles and other regulated activities, and yes - even holding political offices.

What do you think about senior citizens retaining 2nd amendment rights? Motor vehicles can be deadly weapons too. Who determines when my health mandates, that a non medical panelist determines which rights I lose, and when? Mandatory annual cognitive and physical exams, anyone over…..? What age would you propose?

 

[Pokey]

No, I do not think there should be statutorily presumed ages of incompetence or incapacity based upon maximum ages.

I am good with a society that doesn't grant certain rights until reaching a presumed age of competence even though some younger than the statutory age of majority/consent might be responsible enough to exercise those rights.

IMO, it is a completely different proposition to take away rights from individuals once they have obtained them simply because they reach a certain age. Now if we are talking about more frequent licensure testing, etc as we age, I might be okay with that.

My wife’s Daddy and my Dad both were wounded when driving was forbidden. Not an easy thing to do to loved one's. Both over 88 at the time. RIP

 

[Backin82]

No, I do not think there should be statutorily presumed ages of incompetence or incapacity based upon maximum ages.

I am good with a society that doesn't grant certain rights until reaching a presumed age of competence even though some younger than the statutory age of majority/consent might be responsible enough to exercise those rights.

IMO, it is a completely different proposition to take away rights from individuals once they have obtained them simply because they reach a certain age. Now if we are talking about more frequent licensure testing, etc as we age, I might be okay with that.

I disagree (shocker!) that its different to grant a right versus removing it. If we believe as a society that we can appropriately judge competence using age as the criteria, then that should extend to both ends of the spectrum. Revoking licenses and "rights" should 100% be on the table if people cannot sufficiently maintain competence. People lose eyesight as they age. People lose cognitive ability as they age. People lose mobility as they age. People lose motivation as they age. Its part of being human, and I think society should discuss the possibility of removing certain privileges as people get older.

A great example is my grandparents continuing to drive into their 80's and even 90's, and they should NOT have been on the road at a certain point. They were outright, objectively dangerous behind the wheel. Its not because they were less of a human. Its because they couldn't hear, see, or judge sufficiently to make them competent drivers. Yet they insisted on driving, and they were a hazard to everyone else on the roads. I fully support society finding a way to protect others by respectfully finding a way to get those people off the road.

I'd support extending that many other arenas, including politics, based on age alone, just like we do for the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Vakarian74]

 

[Pokey]

I disagree (shocker!) that its different to grant a right versus removing it. If we believe as a society that we can appropriately judge competence using age as the criteria, then that should extend to both ends of the spectrum. Revoking licenses and "rights" should 100% be on the table if people cannot sufficiently maintain competence. People lose eyesight as they age. People lose cognitive ability as they age. People lose mobility as they age. People lose motivation as they age. Its part of being human, and I think society should discuss the possibility of removing certain privileges as people get older.

A great example is my grandparents continuing to drive into their 80's and even 90's, and they should NOT have been on the road at a certain point. They were outright, objectively dangerous behind the wheel. Its not because they were less of a human. Its because they couldn't hear, see, or judge sufficiently to make them competent drivers. Yet they insisted on driving, and they were a hazard to everyone else on the roads. I fully support society finding a way to protect others by respectfully finding a way to get those people off the road.

I'd support extending that many other arenas, including politics, based on age alone, just like we do for the lower end of the spectrum.

No matter how seemingly rational your viewpoint is, I hope you never grow old!

 

[Verbal]

I disagree (shocker!) that its different to grant a right versus removing it. If we believe as a society that we can appropriately judge competence using age as the criteria, then that should extend to both ends of the spectrum. Revoking licenses and "rights" should 100% be on the table if people cannot sufficiently maintain competence. People lose eyesight as they age. People lose cognitive ability as they age. People lose mobility as they age. People lose motivation as they age. Its part of being human, and I think society should discuss the possibility of removing certain privileges as people get older.

A great example is my grandparents continuing to drive into their 80's and even 90's, and they should NOT have been on the road at a certain point. They were outright, objectively dangerous behind the wheel. Its not because they were less of a human. Its because they couldn't hear, see, or judge sufficiently to make them competent drivers. Yet they insisted on driving, and they were a hazard to everyone else on the roads. I fully support society finding a way to protect others by respectfully finding a way to get those people off the road.

I'd support extending that many other arenas, including politics, based on age alone, just like we do for the lower end of the spectrum.

Difference is Driving is not a right.

 

[Backin82]

No matter how seemingly rational your viewpoint is, I hope you never grow old!

Its nothing personal. Its just the reality of our human condition.

I worked out just now, and during my workout realized that I'm no longer 23, because I can't physically match what I could back then. Reality sucks, but it is what it is. I can piss and moan about getting older, but nothing can stop Father Time. At some point, I won't be able to even do what I did today, because my legs and arms would buckle. There's no shame in it. Its natural, and we have to be honest enough with ourselves to accept our limits.

 

[Pokey]

Difference is Driving is not a right.

Pursuit of happiness?

 

[Backin82]

Difference is Driving is not a right.

"Difference" in what? Between driving and being a politician, you mean?

 

[Pokey]

Its nothing personal. Its just the reality of our human condition.

I worked out just now, and during my workout realized that I'm no longer 23, because I can't physically match what I could back then. Reality sucks, but it is what it is. I can piss and moan about getting older, but nothing can stop Father Time. At some point, I won't be able to even do what I did today, because my legs and arms would buckle. There's no shame in it. Its natural, and we have to be honest enough with ourselves to accept our limits.

I certainly know my limits, I just don’t appreciate your qualifications to limit what I do without court orders.

 

[Backin82]

I certainly know my limits, I just don’t appreciate your qualifications to limit what I do without court orders.

I'm just asking if we should at least be open to discussing it, because I view it as a worthy discussion for certain things. I would hate to revoke a driver's license for a 90 year old person that has been able to drive longer than I've been alive. I'd also hate for my 90 year old grandparent to be the cause of killing others due to their incompetence, purely based on their own pride. I think it should be discussed, and not just as it relates to operating motor vehicles.

 

[Pokey]

I'm just asking if we should at least be open to discussing it, because I view it as a worthy discussion for certain things. I would hate to revoke a driver's license for a 90 year old person that has been able to drive longer than I've been alive. I'd also hate for my 90 year old grandparent to be the cause of killing others due to their incompetence, purely based on their own pride. I think it should be discussed, and not just as it relates to operating motor vehicles.

What about their 2nd amendment rights? What tests should seniors pass that are required now for everyone?