• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course it’s ageism. But there are certain jobs that require retirement because of age related problems creating critical issues. I don’t think we should be politely standing by as someone with Alzheimer’s is in a position to affect leadership of the country. They should have an age limit, just like the military. (which is 62)

    As to whether it would require a constitutional amendment, I’m not sure. I’m not a constitutional scholar. But term limits would likely require it if age does. We’re not getting one easier than the other. If we do put in the effort let’s make sure we’re doing the right thing, not some corporate lobby astroturf thing.

    And yes the extent to which our government is a gentleman’s agreement has become glaringly obvious in my lifetime.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are some fundamental issues with our democracy that I think need addressed, but I don’t think age restrictions or term limits would do anything useful. There are already mechanisms in place that are supposed to handle the case of age-related incapacity - these need strengthened, but that doesn’t require an amendment. The other problem I hear this is supposed to address is out-of-touch representatives - which should be addressed by strengthening our voting process. Reverse Citizens United, make it easier for young people to vote, and you’ll see an improvement.

        • 5too@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That would be a massive improvement. I was thinking along the lines of expanded voting time and better remote voting options for college students and the like; but ranked choice would be a seed change.