-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wait! First black woman?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
I look at it this way.....
In the US military one has to retire by their first month after their 64th birthday. But this can be extended by the POTUS to a month after one's 68th birthday.
I would prefer 68 being a manditory retirement age for every government position.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I have no problem at all with reducing the maximum age for running for public office all the way down to 65 years old.
There are minimum age requirements for running for federal elected office; I see no reason for not placing maximum age limits on running, as well.
I think
To get slightly personal, I worked in state government from 1985 until my retirement 3 years ago at age 75. I was still enjoying every day at work and keeping up with my responsibilities, but my knees were not having fun, making it increasingly difficult to perform all the fieldwork expected of a chief forester. Happily, the new CF has excellent experience and offers some talents at which I was less knowledgeable. Win-win.
I think Ken H's suggestion might have legs, given the current presidential race. Obviously, it would require a constitutional amendment, and extending the age-75 rule to the state level might imperil ratification. Applying the military age limit for governmental employees probably would not have a chance, given the radical differences of tasks and knowledge.
To get slightly personal, I worked in state government from 1985 until my retirement 3 years ago at age 75. I was still enjoying every day at work and keeping up with my responsibilities, but my knees were not having fun, making it increasingly difficult to perform all the fieldwork expected of a chief forester. Happily, the new CF has excellent experience and offers some talents at which I was less knowledgeable. Win-win.
What about?
1 Kings 12:6-11 And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.
We do not need to ban people older than 75 (or any other specific age) but we do need a mechanism to trigger the 25 Amendment that does not rely of the integrity of the Vice President and a majority of the President's Cabinet.
Back in the day, folks seeking to disenfranchise some people, invented "poll taxes" and other means to minimize the targeted group voting. So I fear, if a cognitive test is required for candidates, a cognitive test will soon follow for voters, which could be culturally biased to minimize a targeted group.
Here is the problem statement:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
1) If Congress provided a select bipartisan committee, does this group operate independently of the Vice President or only in conjunction with the Vice President.
2) If both the Senate and the House were under the majority control of an opposing Party, could they not impose the 25th upon any President based on trumped up charges such as Mr. Biden has done to Mr. Trump? It seems clear the mechanism for removal must mirror the impeachment and conviction criteria, rather than a simple majority.
It should be becoming clear that no protection provided by the Constitution can be relied upon when people, lacking a commitment to truth, have their hands on the levers of power. Our Vice President told us the President was sharp and functional when he was not. Ditto for those of his Party in power in the Congress.
Back in the day, folks seeking to disenfranchise some people, invented "poll taxes" and other means to minimize the targeted group voting. So I fear, if a cognitive test is required for candidates, a cognitive test will soon follow for voters, which could be culturally biased to minimize a targeted group.
Here is the problem statement:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
1) If Congress provided a select bipartisan committee, does this group operate independently of the Vice President or only in conjunction with the Vice President.
2) If both the Senate and the House were under the majority control of an opposing Party, could they not impose the 25th upon any President based on trumped up charges such as Mr. Biden has done to Mr. Trump? It seems clear the mechanism for removal must mirror the impeachment and conviction criteria, rather than a simple majority.
It should be becoming clear that no protection provided by the Constitution can be relied upon when people, lacking a commitment to truth, have their hands on the levers of power. Our Vice President told us the President was sharp and functional when he was not. Ditto for those of his Party in power in the Congress.
I can foresee a day when those who define gender as only one of two possibilities, or believe homosexual activity should be discouraged, would fail a qualifications test for voting or government work or for employment in corporations controlled by those of the woke persuasion.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Advisors are not the decision-makers.
Yes, there are some folks who get to be 80, 90, or even 100 and still are relatively sharp mentally. On the other hand, there are also some younger folks that are quite capable of being effective elected office holders. If there should not be age limits for older folks, then maybe there should not be age limits for younger folks, either, once they reach 18 years of age.