HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I wish they had set the a...

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:03 AM

I wish they had set the age from 35 to 65 in the constitution for

POTUS.

34 replies, 5067 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply I wish they had set the age from 35 to 65 in the constitution for (Original post)
CK_John Dec 2016 OP
treestar Dec 2016 #1
marybourg Dec 2016 #8
treestar Dec 2016 #26
former9thward Dec 2016 #15
ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #2
dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #3
hughee99 Dec 2016 #6
dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #11
former9thward Dec 2016 #17
philosslayer Dec 2016 #12
LanternWaste Dec 2016 #32
NCTraveler Dec 2016 #33
Hekate Dec 2016 #20
Kilgore Dec 2016 #29
yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #28
Jose Garcia Dec 2016 #30
braddy Dec 2016 #4
hughee99 Dec 2016 #5
CK_John Dec 2016 #7
philosslayer Dec 2016 #9
CK_John Dec 2016 #10
brooklynite Dec 2016 #13
CK_John Dec 2016 #16
NCTraveler Dec 2016 #14
CK_John Dec 2016 #18
NCTraveler Dec 2016 #19
CK_John Dec 2016 #21
NCTraveler Dec 2016 #23
LeftishBrit Dec 2016 #22
Retrograde Dec 2016 #24
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #25
Retrograde Dec 2016 #27
SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #34
LanternWaste Dec 2016 #31

Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:06 AM

1. In those days they had no idea

of a life span so long. To them 35 was probably middle age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:35 AM

8. Take a look at age at death of

our first 5 or 6 presidents. You'll see that isn't so:

http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/pres_longev.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:55 PM

26. I don't think they had the idea of being "too old"

like we do now, which I guess is what is behind the OP.

Reagan did get Alzheimers during his term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:29 PM

15. Not really.

In those days if you made it to 20, past the killer childhood diseases of the time, you could roughly expect to live to the age a 20 year old in 2016 can expect to live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:06 AM

2. Why?

A lot of people aren't able to take part in public service until they retire. Most of us under 65 have full-time jobs and families that don't really allow time or money for all the work that goes into a campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:14 AM

3. I wish it weren't so hard to change amendments set in place by men wearing powdered wigs!

That is the nicest thing i can think to say about them! Poor people, women, indians and even black human beings counted as 3/5th a person had fewer rights or no rights, than these rich white assholes! They held the bible so dear, i hope they got what they deserved, burning in hell for all eternity!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:33 AM

6. Yes, nothing protects civil liberties like a document that's easy to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:54 AM

11. My bad. Instead of saying hard, i should have said Impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:34 PM

17. Its not impossible.

There have been 33 amendments submitted by Congress to the states and 27 have been ratified. The people that wrote the Constitution wanted it to be hard to change unless there was a broad national consensus. That meant stability rather than the chaos they saw in Europe. That is a good thing not a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:04 PM

12. I agree

 

The founding fathers were wretched, wretched men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 03:07 PM

32. As were Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Plato who also rationalized slavery and misogyny.

 

As were Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Plato who also rationalized slavery and misogyny.

I realize the convenience and mental simplicity denial of cultural and historical context allows the undisciplined mind, but it is actually necessary for rational thought. However, I dare not come between a poster and his closely-cherished bumper-sticker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 03:11 PM

33. Interestingly enough, the thoughts can exist in one mind at the same time.

 

Though I would hate to come between a poster and their absolute thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:49 PM

20. You are abysmally ignorant of US history if you think the framers of the Constitution were fundies

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

....of the modern ilk. They would have drawn back in disgust from today's Bible-thumpers.

Some were devout Christians, but others were Deists and agnostics. They were, to use a long popular phrase, Sons of the Enlightenment. References to "the Creator" were not to Jesus per se, but to a more general being, such as a divine clockmaker who wound up the universe and departed to let it run itself. They believed in human free will, intelligence, and education.

They were men of their time in sometimes regrettable ways, but they wrote documents that changed the way the world thought about individual freedom, and a Constitution and Bill of Rights that have been copied the world over whenever people have endeavored to found new nations.

Those documents are alive, and able to change as we change. I believe that. If it were not so, women would still have fewer rights than children and the mentally defective, and African Americans would still be enslaved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:23 PM

29. Bravo! Good post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:11 PM

28. In 200 years, history will look at those who supported marriage between a man and women

 

as absolutely horrible. And that will include both party members who didn't evolve until later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:45 PM

30. The 3/5 clause was changed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:24 AM

4. 14 or fight

 



"The first bill Sally introduces is a constitutional amendment to lower the age requirements for national political office—to 14, and "Fourteen or Fight!" enters a new phase. A joint session of Congress is called, and the Troopers (by now joined by Fergus' son Jimmy, played by Michael Margotta) swing the vote their way by spiking the Washington water supply with LSD, and providing all the senators and representatives with teenaged escorts.
As teens either take over or threaten the reins of government, the "Old Guard" (those over 40) turn to Max to run for president, and assert his (their) control over the changing tide. Max again agrees, running as a Republican to his chagrin, but once in office, he turns the tide on his older supporters. Thirty becomes a mandatory retirement age, while those over 35 are rounded up, sent to "re-education camps", and permanently dosed on LSD."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:26 AM

5. Of the 4 "major" candidates in the last election, Gary Johnson would have been the only one

in that range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:34 AM

7. Maybe he might make the debates then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:37 AM

9. So you didn't support Hillary Clinton OR Bernie Sanders?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 11:41 AM

10. You are making a wrong conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:08 PM

13. Since you didn't bother to explain your reasoning, you can understand why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:31 PM

16. It would avoid trying to change the constitution in today's world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:10 PM

14. No shit. If Clinton and Sanders weren't running there would have been...

 

bigly talk about autonomous vehicles. Might have even been an October surprise on that topic. Instead we were stuck with two people so old that they are still getting use to the thought of a navigation system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:40 PM

18. You keep harping on this "October surprise topic" but I don't recall

it. I said that people didn't pay any attention until around Oct 13. So if you have a personal beef just spit it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:42 PM

19. How many posts equates to harping?

 

I think I have laughed at the thought three times in the last couple of days. I mean, it's funny as shit. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:56 PM

21. Do you take part in the "Automation Denier" poll, sorry it has timed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:02 PM

23. No. I was laughing too hard.

 

How many comments does one little lady get before you consider it "harping"?

I think people who want to limit participation should go pound sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:59 PM

22. If that had been the case in the UK...

Churchill could not have been our Prime Minister during WW2.

Mandela could not have been president of South Africa under that rule.

I think the better approach might be to find a better way of dealing with the temporary or permanent succession if the president becomes ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:16 PM

24. It would have also eliminated a lot of US presidents

Obama, Kennedy, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt - even Washington. IIRC, the only US presidents to have qualified under this proposal would have been Reagan and if-a-miracle-doesnt-happen Trump. Late 50s seems to be a good age for a president - old enough to have gained experience, young enough to avoid many of the problems of aging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:49 PM

25. What?

I think the OP is calling for Presidents between the ages of 35 and 65, not younger than 35 and older than 65. None of the people you mentioned as being excluded would have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:07 PM

27. Sorry, caffiene hasn't kicked in yet

and I'm used to the OP's posts not making all that much sense in the first place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 03:58 PM

34. Been there on the caffiene front! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 03:01 PM

31. What objective belief leads you to wish as such?

 

What objective belief leads you to wish as such, and what is the specific and positive end-result that would result, currently denied by the already in-place strictures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread