Term limits don’t sit right with me in general. The country would probably be in a much better place today if Obama had been able to run again in 2016.
But you have to think of the other side of that coin. Imagine the states being able to flip the vote (not a hypothetical) and keeping Trump in forever.
Full title: President Biden jokes to dinner guests if you’re disoriented or confused, you’re either ‘drunk or Marjorie Taylor Greene’
Canadian Senators have been subject to a mandatory retirement age of 75 since 1965.
That’s a thing Canada does differently. Does it have mostly elderly senators?
The Canadian Senate is an entirely different creature than the US Senate, though. Appointed, not elected, and most of the real legislation happens in the Commons. Besides age limits (30-75) there are a bunch of other disqualifying provisions.
Is it more akin to the House of Lords in Great Britain?
There are federal American jobs that have mandatory retirement ages already, as well as in lots of states. Senators aren’t one of them, but there’s no reason it would necessarily be illegal to do it.
The House of Lords served as the basis for the composition of the Canadian Senate, and it has some close similarities to the current Lords makeup. Most of the current Senators are not officially linked to a political party. Ages range from 49-74, with the longest-serving current Senator having been there for 24 years. Recent governments have made efforts to make the membership more diverse.
Senate of Canada
The courts have generally ruled that if the constitution says the requirements are “X”, it is not legal to impose additional requirements beyond “X”. I’m pretty sure we’d need a constitutional amendment to impose an upper age limit on senators.
Yup…a constitutional amendment would be needed to make a mandatory retirement age.
The US constitution lays out the requirements to be a congresscritter or president. That’s the end of it. No other requirement can be imposed without an amendment…good luck with that. (the people who need to pass it are the people who have an interest not to pass regardless of party).
There is a way to bypass congresscritters voting on it but that’s really difficult to do too.
She’s back now.
I’m glad she is back but still…she really, really needs to resign.
I don’t care what party they are, isn’t 65 the federal retirement age? (Ok, 67 or whatever. Close enough for government work). Why aren’t any of these people subject to the laws they passed?
Washington City is starting to look like the old Kremlin, back when Brezhnev and all those old party apparatchiks were hanging around long after their “Best By” date.
Because the qualifications to sit in Congress are dictated by the Constitution, not the Department of Labor.
There’s no general mandatory retirement age for Federal employees - some jobs , like law enforcement and fire fighters have a mandatory retirement age but most do not.
Age 65 is not a “retirement age’” in the USA and never has been.
It is, or at least was, the age of earliest eligibility for old age pension benefits. Those are two largely unrelated things logically speaking, and two utterly unrelated things legally speaking.
And yes, nowadays the old age pension date has been muddied into “62 through 70 as you prefer, but ‘normally’ 66 years and a few months.” which kinda mixes things up.
The news showed her return to Washington. She looks frail and had to be helped into a wheelchair. Even if her mind is still able to do the job of a Senator, the travel and other rigors of the job and whatnot will be hard on her. I am not exactly sure what she expects to accomplish by continuing on at this point.
Ensuring the seat is not occupied by an R, that’s what. Not much more than that.
CA hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1988, and there’s zero possibility of Newsom appointing a Republican to fill her seat if she were to step down.