Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Constitutional Amendment 28 (Proposed)
Before sending this to my respective U.S. Representative and Senator, I invite the Ricochet community to read, reflect and comment on the following proposed Amendment XXVIII to the U.S. Constitution:
As pertains to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5; and Amendment XXII, Section 1:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President who shall have exceeded the age of seventy-two years by the time of inauguration to the first term of service.”
It’s simple, direct, and addresses a multitude of problems. No candidate, no matter how seemingly hale and hearty, would be eligible if they have exceeded by two years the age of mandatory Social Security (seventy). The high physical and psychological demands of the presidency are indisputable; hoping that the normal and expected consequences of aging will not affect an individual’s capacity to perform the duties of President is wishful thinking at best.
If passed by Congress and ratified by the states prior to 31 December 2023, it would apply to the 2024 General Election. Both political parties would have sufficient time to adjust to the new requirement. Both sides of the “Blue-Red” divide would have the means to “save face” by turning aside from superannuated “senior leaders” whose “best days” are behind them.
Thoughts?Published in General
Yes! Actually, I would suggest the age of 70.
I’d sign on for that
But aren’t there several senators over age 72 who think they should be president?
So a two-termer could get close to 80?
I would take out “to the first term of service.” Otherwise, someone who is 71 at the time of inauguration to his/her first term, if re-elected, would be 75 when inaugurated for the second term, and 79 when the second term ends. If 72 is too old, it’s too old regardless of whether the person has already served a term.
So we would have:
Done and done.
Yup. Might have to go to the Article V Amendment Convention for this.
On further reflection, I don’t think we should limit this to the office of President. So
I used the “oath of office” as a trigger point to cover all Federal elected posts.
I wouldn’t make it “oath of office” since they might make it so no oath is given, to bypass the restriction.
And you might want to specify “Earth years” while you’re at it. Better yet, make it “time period for this planet to make one rotation about the Sun.” Don’t even call it Earth, in case they pass legislation to change the name of the planet to “McConnellWorld.”
And specify that 72 is in Base 10/Decimal.
Because you can’t be too careful with those people.
And 72 in Hex is 114.
I think one question is do we think we can rely on the VP and the majority of the cabinet to declare that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If so, we probably don’t need another rule that would disqualify someone we might all agree would be the best one for the job. There are some pretty sharp old people. Of course, most of them are smart enough to not be in this question, so maybe we do need a retirement age.
No. The people should decide. Technology will change what is ‘too old’.
Then why can’t the people decide to elect someone younger than 35?
You’ve got company on the Democratic side.
I don’t agree. No sense gumming it up with one more requirement.
Forgive my curiosity, but does “inaugurated” encompass a possible “acting” presidency that starts out as an appointment with Congress’ confirmation to fill a vacant VP slot, and then that unelected VP merely succeeds to the office of Acting President when the incumbent has resigned, died, or has been ousted, per the 25th Amendment?
Or are inaugurations strictly limited to winners of presidential elections?
Good point. They should be able to.
Does your flexibility extend to people voting at whatever age they like?
If not, why not?
And if not, why not apply the same logic to ages of office-holders?
This would get some support because we are watching a human wreck waste away before our eyes. Truthfully, I feel there are a lot of other matters should be taken care of and are more pressing. There is no real order of importance here but term limits for both elected personnel and federal agencies, “sunset” rules requiring fed agencies to come up for review after a certain term, several that attack budget issues, the ability of the Congress and/or state legislatures to reverse a Supreme Court decision within five years of the decision with super majority ….. the list goes on. I believe any of these has a higher piority than this.
But the point is made that the power of fed has to limited by the people most of it returning to the states. The politicos in Congress would be against all that woould helpful. Article Five Convention is probably the only route to get any of it done to save the republic
Could we get term limits added in there somehow?
One small step in cleaning house.
I would add, “No one who has served in Congress as a senator shall be allowed to serve as President of the United States.”
There would definitely be bipartisan votes in Congress for it.
I don’t want anything that keeps Trump from office.
3-year olds should not be voting. Live 80-year-olds should be voting.
This is so obviously aimed at Trump while claiming to be aimed at Biden.
I’m not so sure. Most House members could dream of one day being Senators, and Senators probably dream of being President.
No. I prefer the voters to determine who is the best person for the job and sometimes someone over 70 is just fine. The problem is that this time the man who is in office wasn’t elected, the ballot boxes were stuffed.
I think the USA would be better served by barring anyone from being President who hasnt done a single term as governor of a state.
It would solve so many problems, and provide a record of accomplishments and failures for any candidate.
And would have blocked Trump, but then again if we hadn’t had Obama and so many other non-governors, Trump might not have been necessary.
There have been plenty of whacko governors, though, who became president. Carter, Clinton…
I would have thought 75 but 72 or 70 would be ok.
We also need an amendment fixing the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine since one party keeps threatening to change the rules whenever they lose.
I am well aware it blocks Ike as well. But I think overall it would have worked out better.
Brilliant. As Hicks said in Aliens, it’s the only way to be sure.