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
Then why was the Death Penalty ruled unConstitutional for a period of time?
It’s amazing how people still think he was naive.
As long as we’re adding qualifications for the Presidency, here’s my proposed amendment:
“No Parent, Child, Spouse [or ex-spouse] of any person who has held any Federal Elected office shall be eligible to hold any Federal elected office.”
No more dynasties. No more “Family seats” in Congress.
I’m all for that. Include federal employees too.
“As applied”, but still…
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/on-this-day-supreme-court-temporarily-finds-death-penalty-unconstitutional
The 5th (and the 14th) amendments state that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”.
By the way, the 8th Amendment does not ban “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”, it bans “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” (Plural), which is a subtle but significant difference.
So, someone can be subjected to one cruel and unusual punishment, but not two or more?
Also, the 5th specifically contemplates the death penalty:
Don’t see how Madison could have felt the death penalty was unconstitutional base on that wording.
SCOTUS suspended the death penalty in 1972, but never actually ruled it unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. The decision was a mess, being 5-4 and all of the justices concurring, but there was no plurality opinion. The five in the majority wrote separate concurring opinions, while the dissenter wrote 4 opinions; 3 opinion had the others joining in part. Just a total Charlie-Foxtrot.
Right, it wasn’t found to be unconstitutional in all cases, and the door opened wider again shortly thereafter.
Fair enough, but to me it isn’t quite explicit enough for such a volatile topic.
No, it is not at all a difference. That is simply semantics as it is talking about all people and all of the possible cruel and unusual punishments. I don’t think, and neither do you, that any court would find this to be a difference.