Thanks for the corrections... seriously.
Two thoughts come to mind. One is 'cut and paste' reduces errors (at least in my case) and clarifies details which some folks prefer to overlook because opinions and not facts are key to so many Getbig discussions. Second, the length of the term was not my point. All legislators are elected by their constituents. Senator Diane Feinstein was 90 years old when she passed. There was one year left in her current term. The last time she was elected to the Senate, she was 85 years old and clearly geriatric, yet her constituents reelected her for another 6 years.
My observations stand, if folks want younger more vibrant people in elected positions, the ball is in their court. This is not ‘rocket science!’
The point is there are already age limits preventing only younger people from being elected, see previous post. Likewise, if 34 is too young to be President and 29 too young to be Senator, why was a fossil like Feinstein fine at 90 years old or Strom Thurmond at 99 years old, who had to be wheeled in the Senate while barely understanding what's going on around them? Obviously incumbency plays a big role and is pretty much an "auto-pilot" feature that usually guarantees perpetual re-election. Cognitive tests will probably not do much but imagine in the case some career politician with 30+ year career failed that test, there would immediately be accusations of political bias, even if they are valid. I think term limits combined with age limits (minimum and maximum) are feasible. But I think I already strayed too far from the original discussion topic and I don't want to derail Grape Ape's thread.
