40 points

The new measure bans people from running for a House or Senate seat in North Dakota “if that person could attain 81 years of age by December 31st of the year immediately preceding the end of the term.”

I know this is for congressional seats, but Biden will be 81 this November and Trump will be 78. Seems like such a coincidental age to pick red state…

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Neither is running for house or senate

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

If it applied to President, it would include Trump, unless I’m reading it wrong. Trump just turned 78, he will turn 81 in 2027, the year prior to the end of the term for which he’d be running.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Is this constitutional?

Also, can’t people just not vote for someone they think is too old?

permalink
report
reply
19 points

I don’t see why not? I can’t run for president at 31. Additionally, it is up to each state to define how its elections are held, and that’s delineated in the constitution as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The minimum age requirements are in the Constitution, so it would be hard to challenge them. There’s nothing about a maximum age.

On the other hand, the supreme Court very recently ruled that Colorado couldn’t keep Trump off the ballot in that state.

At the very least, this seems wide open to be legally challenged.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

There is no limitation on length of age in the constitution. In order to change that, a constitutional amendment is needed. A state cannot decide. It is plainly unconstitutional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It absolutely is. States are granted the right to send representatives to Congress in pretty much any way they see fit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Historically states can run their own elections, but just recently the supreme Court jumped in to say Colorado couldn’t keep an insurrectionist from running for president.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

A president is not a congressman.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh god, don’t make me remember that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

No, they can’t. The SCOTUS ruled in 1995 that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those the Constitution specifies.

state-imposed restrictions … violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What a fucking crazy quote in the face of the electoral college.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well that’s going to stick in the craw of certain state legislatures when they try to overrule the will of the voters in the upcoming election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well, people don’t really have the choice to not vote for people they deem to old if they are the only person running for their party. If we had rules for maximum ages that would force parties to offer us younger candidates to vote for

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I don’t think people who won’t be around long enough to see the effects of their legislation should be anywhere near the levers of power.

This is our time boomers, fuck off and die already. We will try cleaning up the mess you made of our planet.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

One of my favorite thing about Age being one of the protected classes is that they literally wrote it as "you can’t discriminate by age UNLESS THE PERSON IS TOO YOUNG.

They took the legislation against age discrimination and said only they were allowed to discriminate.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

I’m on board with some sort of age cap, but it shouldn’t be a specific age/number cutoff.

That number should be dynamic and change according to some other metric like the average life expectancy of someone in that country. Maybe something like 90-95% of the life expectancy of the country?

At least that way we can provide another incentive for politicians to push forward legislation that will help increase the overall life expectancy of the nation as a whole.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

They would redefine what life expectancy means rather than care about improving it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 477K

    Comments