Most Americans favor maximum age limits for federal elected officials, Supreme Court justices

Politics
1

It is not even close. The American public demand age limits and they have very solid reasons to do so.

Just a handful of those solid reasons are Biden, Trump, McConnell, Feinstein, Pelosi, Thurmond, Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Grassley, Pauline Newman, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Even with slight partisan differences in the polling, both partisan sides are still overwhelmingly in agreement on age limits.

I have repeated my personal proposal below. Because an amendment could not possibly be ratified until after 2024, it could not take effect until 2028 and thus neither Biden nor Trump would be effected. Nor would any Justice or Judge be forced from office until January 20th, 2029.

I have picked 75 as the break point. Neither elected officials of any kind, Officers of the United States nor Judges would be allowed to remain in office beyond that age.

Since age is not partisan, it would pick off both Republicans and Democrats in equal measure.

The public has clearly, loudly and overwhelmingly spoken on this issue and Republicans and Democrats should yield their own selfish and/or political interests and answer the demands of the public with a Constitutional Amendment.

Amendment ???

Section 1. Effective the first general election held at least 18 months subsequent to the ratification of this article of amendment, no person shall be eligible for election to the offices of President, Vice President, Presidential Elector, Senator or Representative, who shall attain to the age of seventy five years prior to the last day of the term sought, December 31st immediately subsequent to the election in the case of Presidential Electors. This shall include appointment to any vacant senatorial office. This section shall not be construed to apply to individuals elected or holding office prior to the effective date of this section, for the remainder of such term of office.

Section 2. No person shall hold any office of honor or profit under the United States who shall have attained to the age of seventy five years prior to appointment and any person holding such office shall relinquish it on the day they attain to the age of seventy five years. The operation of this section shall be deferred until 18 months subsequent to the ratification of this article of amendment. For purposes of this section only, an office of honor or profit shall include Judges appointed under Article I and Article IV of the Constitution, as well as United States Bankruptcy Judges and United States Magistrate Judges, but shall exclude Justices or Judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to serve during good behavior.

Section 3. Justices and Judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to serve during good behavior shall retire from active service on the day their whole year age plus their whole year combined terms of service under Article III shall equal to eighty, provided they shall have served ten years in combined service under Article III and shall have attained to the age of sixty five years. Justices and Judges who are retired from active service under this section shall be entitled to assume senior status and remain in service, but in no case shall any Justice or Judge remain in service after attaining to seventy five years of age. Justices and judges in senior status shall receive one hundred percent of the salary of an active service Justice or Judge. Retired justices and judges shall receive an annuity equal to one hundred percent of the salary they were receiving at the time of their retirement.

Section 4. Justices and Judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to serve during good behavior, who shall have accumulated fifteen years of combined service under Article III, but who have not attained to sixty five years of age may take deferred retirement. They may terminate service, and upon attaining to sixty five years of age, shall receive an annuity equal to one hundred percent of the salary they were receiving when they terminated service.

Section 5. Justices and Judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States to serve during good behavior who are voluntarily or involuntarily certified as disabled shall immediately be retired from active service and shall receive an annuity equal to the salary they were receiving at retirement, provided they have served ten years or more of combined Article III service. A Justice or Judge who has served less than two and one half years of combined Article III service shall be separated with no retirement annuity. A Justice or Judge who has served two and one half years to five years shall receive an annuity equal to fifty percent of the salary they were receiving at retirement. A Justice or Judge who has served six, seven, eight or nine years of combined Article III service shall receive an annuity equal to sixty, seventy, eighty or ninety percent, respectively, of the salary they were receiving at retirement.

Section 6. The operation of sections 3, 4 and 5 of this article of amendment shall be deferred until the first day of the first presidential term of office subsequent to ratification of this amendment.

Section 7. The terms of all Senators shall expire at the first general election held at least 18 months subsequent to the ratification of this article of amendment, regardless of when they were previously scheduled to expire. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of this election, they shall be divided equally into two classes, with the Senators of each individual State in separate classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year and of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, so that one half may be chosen every second year. Thereafter, Senators shall serve for the term of four years.

4 Likes
2

If they’re eligible to collect Social Security, they should be ineligible for office.

1 Like
3

I was going to say something similar.

And they should have to collect from the same system of SS as everyone else. It goes bankrupt then so does their retirement.

2 Likes
4

Are you talking about creating Amendment? NO!!!

2 Likes
5

As far as their retirement goes, there should be a vote on their way out about whether or not they even earned one.

1 Like
6

I fully support this. Any chance we can get it going in time to be in force before 2025?

7

a lifetime appointment until we think your life is worthless

we voted, give us everything you own

8

I said earlier this year that I favor both term limits and a 75 year old age limit for all people in public office.

9

Seems like people need…or want government control when they cannot control themselves.

I find that very interesting.

1 Like
10

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

The only people who are being “controlled” are politicians and judges who have been around too ■■■■■■■ long and need to leave.

335,000,000 people in the United States. At least 150,000,000 of whom would be in the age eligible category for most Federal offices and judgeships at any one time.

Surely you can find politicians and judges you like from that many choices.

In any event, you are in the 20% minority of the population.

11

So you’re one of those people…majority rule.

I can’t help you if you’re unable or unwilling to control yourself. You have that power.

What else you need amendments to help you with?

1 Like
12

So 79% think there should be age limits and the same people go vote in a bunch of old people seemingly at every chance. Go figure.

3 Likes
13

So people need laws to control there own urges…and some people need a Constitutional Amendment to help em.

I just don’t understand it.

14

I’m thinking what else do we need a Constitutional amendment for?

I’m sure we can come up with good list to restrict government instead of we the people.

15

I’m of two minds on this.

  1. I think we need to use the amendment process a lot more often. It’s designed to be a tough process and things that don’t have wide spread support nation wide have no chance of ever passing.

What we have now is a government so opposed to amendments that they just ignore the laws that are supposed to restrict them entirely. At least if an amendment is attempted and fails it’s actually a “no” message going out there.

  1. in this specific instance I don’t know as it’s “needed”, but at the same time I wouldn’t oppose it and would probably vote for it, because people obviously can’t be saved from their own stupidity.
16

My question is how does this amendment restricts government?

What I’m seeing is it restrict you from supporting your candidate, or who can run for office.

Is that a road you want to go down?

Now having said that yes…some of those old farts are just too damn old. But that doesn’t mean we need to make another amendment.

1 Like
17

I could not disagree more. In my opinion, we need to stop the small thinking. Kill Newton and Descartes.

18

80% to 20% is NOT 51% to 49% majoritarianism.

And frankly, the issue is that we have not had MORE amendments, rather than depending on judicial activism.

The President has been far too â– â– â– â– â– â– â–  powerful, since Abraham Lincoln. I would be more than happy to amend the Constitution to trim the power of the Presidency significantly.

The founders are dead and the living are not bound by their concept of government. If the present generation wants to change the Constitution by Constitutional Amendment, they should be free to do so. The Constitution is not a sacred document and has been amended 27 times to this point.

The founder’s original concept of the electoral college was a total cluster ■■■■ and that had to be fixed by 1804 by Amendment 12.

Presidential power and age limits are two issues that need to be addressed by constitutional amendment.

And if the changes I make in regard to Presidential power were passed, it would make for a freer society.

1 Like
19

The amendment as drafted would not be effective for 2025, even if it passed Congress and was ratified by the States immediately.

It has a built-in 18 month deferment for the public to prepare for it becoming effective.

Would not be good to change the rules in the middle of an election cycle.

20

Another reason for delaying the implementation is to mute any arguments that specific politicians (Biden, Trump, Grassley, etc.) are being targeted. The amendment would have no effect for 2024 and either Biden or Trump would not be effected by the age provision.

Neither man is likely to be a factor in 2028, when the amendment would likely be in force.