• AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is this constitutional?

    Also, can’t people just not vote for someone they think is too old?

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t see why not? I can’t run for president at 31. Additionally, it is up to each state to define how its elections are held, and that’s delineated in the constitution as well.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The minimum age requirements are in the Constitution, so it would be hard to challenge them. There’s nothing about a maximum age.

        On the other hand, the supreme Court very recently ruled that Colorado couldn’t keep Trump off the ballot in that state.

        At the very least, this seems wide open to be legally challenged.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        There is no limitation on length of age in the constitution. In order to change that, a constitutional amendment is needed. A state cannot decide. It is plainly unconstitutional.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It absolutely is. States are granted the right to send representatives to Congress in pretty much any way they see fit.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Historically states can run their own elections, but just recently the supreme Court jumped in to say Colorado couldn’t keep an insurrectionist from running for president.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s true and it’s been a long time since I read the Constitution too closely. States already have signature requirements for getting on the ballot anyway though. But the supreme Court saying these requirements for this office are ok but these other requirements for this other office aren’t is going to get real ugly real fast

            • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              After looking more closely at precedent and the constitutional outlining, it looks like the list of qualifications for Congress et al are considered exhaustive and require a constitutional amendment to add any further restrictions. Take a look at the decision in U. S. Term Limits Inc V Thornton, which came to the conclusion that states cannot impose qualifications on federal congressional candidates and that a states people’s have the right to deny them at election time if they so choose. So I concede. It’s a good idea, but the system makes it difficult to implement. Unless another FDR style tragedy happens in office and then some big national tragedy happens, I really don’t see a way to get this passed.

              But for state government, the term limits could be passed. Idk how beneficial that really is, but 🤷‍♂️