HikeArizona.COM

It is believed to be the first-in-the-nation measure imposing age limits on candidates seeking federal office, but it’s also expected to be challenged in court.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... 2Fpolitics

If they (i.e. the people challenging the measure) think the maximum age is arbitrary, how do they feel about the minimum age for Presidential candidates?

One could argue that a candidate over a certain age is far more likely to become incapacitated and unable to carry out his or her duties, so I don't think it's completely arbitrary, as they're suggesting.

Sounds great until you read that they set it at a very high age. It is 4 years beyond the average life expectancy. Why not cap things at 100? It is like they came out with the bold stance of making murder against the law. Whatever.

The 1995 Supreme Court case which prevented Arkansas from imposing term limits on its congressional elections was pretty clear and would apply to this situation as well

A state ... amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"

However, it is notable that the opposing view to that 5-4 ruling was written by Clarence Thomas, who is still on the court, and now has an extra vote or two that typically falls on his side of decisions. So if there's still some semblance of a Union, or only 9 members on the supreme court when this makes its way up that far, who knows?

I'd be more inclined to require some kind of aptitude test, like formulating a complete sentence, walking down a flight of stairs, or posting a tweet without using words that don't exist.

About Term Limits v. Thornton 1995: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/

It really doesn't matter who the rep is; it's who or what interest that is running them. Some towns have elected dogs or cats mayors. I guess if you want a somewhat camera ready person then get them some hair dye and a good plastic surgeon ( not Nancy P's surgeon!) and a good ear piece.

@chumley
I'm just having a hard time reconciling that "handicapping a whole class of candidates" thing with the fact that there are existing requirements around minimum age, citizenship, personhood, etc. If the idea is to just let the voters decide, why are there any requirements at all?

@ShatteredArm
I guess you should ask the folks who put those things in the Constitution, and why they didn't include a provision to add other things to it.

@chumley
I'm not sure the Constitution explicitly says states can't make such rules, which is why that 1995 decision was far from unanimous. Typically states can do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit (see: 10th Amendment).

Idea is catching on. Lords would have to retire at 80 under Labour plans. In Labour's plan for government, the immediate priority would be shrinking the size of the Lords and making it easier for "disgraced peers" to be removed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033d ... 2Fpolitics

chumley wrote:I'd be more inclined to require some kind of aptitude test,

• In North Dakota it is illegal to keep an elk in a sandbox in your backyard.