• Jo Miran
    link
    fedilink
    5011 months ago

    Here is my completely nonpartisan hot take. We should pass a constitutional amendment that ties the maximum age to hold public office (including judges) to the Social Security “Normal Retirement Age” at the time of passing. That is currently 67 years old. You can do whatever you want past 67, but you can’t hold public office.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3211 months ago

      Do you want them to make the retirements age 90? I’d rather not give those assholes a perverse incentive to reduce benefits.

      • Jo Miran
        link
        fedilink
        1111 months ago

        I did state “at time of passage” but we might as well say “at time of drafting” to avoid shenanigans.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 months ago

      In a lot of a states you can bring forward laws to ballots that amend the state constitutions with enough public signatures. I think in our modern day lack of a useful government officials we should use this tool far more often to attempt to ensure a healthier government.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      What difference will that make? Also, what happens if/when life extension/age reversal becomes an everyday thing? Government regulations often move at a glacial pace, why fix something in place now that will be hard to remove when it’s completely irrelevant. We are even still saddled with the stupid EC and the idea that states all get 2 senators, no matter their population size. How long would it take to remove a rule like this that quickly becomes obviously ridiculous in the near future?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        Young politicians will always have an incentive to consider raising the age limit. This isn’t a system that leads to irreversible change when and if the time arises where the limit is no longer appropriate.