Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (4 children)

TL;DR; they can't run if they would turn 81in the last year of their term.

The headline sounds nice but this law barely does anything to address the issue. Legislators also expect this law to be overturned so it's more of a vague gesture than it is an enforcable measure

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 49 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hell yeah, good job North Dakota!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    Needs to be nationwide, top to bottom

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Now try to get them to pass a minimum age for marriage.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    They have one; it's 16 with parental consent, 18 otherwise.

    https://www.findlaw.com/state/north-dakota-law/north-dakota-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

    The four states that don't have a minimum marriage age are California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma; and all of them require parental consent or a court order for under-18s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#Underage_marriage

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Term limits for congress and the senate are also needed , make it so that you can not serve more than 2 terms in any state or federal office. This would reduce the influence of career politicians and allow fresh ideas to be tried.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    This. I have no idea why it's a popular trope to just talk about "term limits" as if it would actually solve anything. For some reason, actual expertise at governing is frowned on, but I doubt the very people arguing for term limits would ever argue for term limits for a plumber, a dentist, a mechanic, a roofer...anyone up for having their teeth drilled by an "outsider"? I know I'm not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I have strongly mixed feelings on this. Perhaps we should intact term limits, but probably not as short as usually proposed and probably paired with something to limit outside influence. The common claim I hear is that with a more junior Congress they would be even more reliant on the parts of "government" that stick around longer, like lobbyists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through...

    The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Except it would be reducing the influence of career politicians by increasing the influence of corporate plants. It would make political offices even more of a revolving door than they already are. Would also increase the number of people just going rogue on their last term because “what are you gonna do, not elect me again?”

    A whole lot of other shit would need to change first before implementing term limits would make any sense to do. At the very least overturning the Citizens United decision and some sort of mechanism to help ensure that politicians actually govern according to the platform they run on. And arguably both of those things would do a lot more to help our current problems than term limits would…which means neither is ever going to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    No. Absolutely not. The problem here is age, not politics as a career. This is how you get monolithic parties where the internal politics between unelected party officials and billionaires run the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] [B] 13 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Voters in North Dakota approved a ballot measure that sets a maximum age for representing the state in Congress, The Associated Press said on Tuesday.

    Experts said they believed North Dakota was the first state to impose such a requirement on members of Congress, though they said the measure is likely to be challenged in court.

    The measure provided a rare glimpse into how one state’s voters think about age at a time when questions over the effectiveness of older political leaders have been part of the national conversation.

    As a practical matter, the rule does not pose a threat to the state’s three current federal lawmakers, all Republicans, who range in age from 47 to 67.

    In 2022, Mr. Hendrix led a successful effort to set term limits for governor and state legislators.

    A Supreme Court case in 1995 established that states cannot add eligibility restrictions beyond those in the Constitution.


    The original article contains 338 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    I don't care how old a person is... I care if they're sound of mind. We need to start having cognitive testing done before someone can run

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're not allowed to be an airline pilot over the age of 67. If that's too old to command a plane, it's too old to command a country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean... I could see quick reflexes coming into play for a pilot more than for a president though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The military retires officers of all ranks at 62. If you're too old to sit in an office and command a division, you're too old to sit in the oval office and command the entire military.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    That'll never happen, too easy to fudge. Worse, as medical technology improves lifespans increase. By 2100 (if we're still here) we could potentially have people 150 fucking years old or more in politics that started at 30. You think some old, rich bastard 50 years out of touch is bad, wait until that old, rich bastard is 100 years out of touch. Or 200. Or fuck knows how long we could drag this shit out for if you're rich and powerful enough to get the longevity tech, medicine, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's still too old. Needs to be 70-75.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    While I like the idea, I can’t imagine it would pass a constitutional test. However, an age limit that kicks in only after a person has been in an elected position for X years probably could. This would allow an 81 year old that had never held office to run for the first time and not be discriminated based on age.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It won't survive a court challenge, as the Supreme Court already ruled on this back in 1995 in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The ruling says that states can't add additional eligibility requirements to be elected to or otherwise serve in federal office beyond what the constitution lists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    So you’re saying there is a constitutional provision to prevent young people from running for office but not old people?

    Given that on average teenagers are, according to any testable criteria, smarter and saner than old people, maybe the constitution needs to be amended. Septuagenarians shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone run the fucking country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    While I think mandatory retirement ages need to be discussed across the board on all three branches, it's a cheap shot and unconstitutional

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why is it unconstitutional? We have age minimums. If you are a commercial pilot there are age limits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because right now there are no age limitations in the Constitution for elected officials. A state cannot change that, it needs a constitutional amendment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Can't read the link and how no desire to search around for a way around the paywall today.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›