this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
521 points (99.4% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4163 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Need a new amendment enforcing federal retirement age on elected and appointed people. If you hit it during your term, you can’t run again. If you position is appointed, you have a year to step down.

Also need a federal law correcting the recent bribery ruling, and applying it to ALL federal employees, political and non-political. Call it the Thomas Act.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that be funny? Biden, in his last months in office, sets term limits on Congress that would have also booted him! That would be the most epic walking away while something explodes behind you kind of moment.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would be great but the President has no such power. Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats, aren't going to legislate against themselves continuing to steal millions with insider trading.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats

Well, they aren't as geriatric and kleptocratic as United Russia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Age discrimination. Term limits or length of service would be more fair.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I can agree with that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Age discrimination is codified. Minimum president age is 35, senator is 30, and congressperson is 25. No reason for it but age discrimination. If we can't put a ceiling they need to remove the floor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Sure but you need an amendment. It will be very hard to do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah dude, electing some 30 yo who can just sit and wreck havoc for 60 years, where's the logic behind that?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’ll be honest: I don’t know what you’re saying here. Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Term limits are more fair, basically. So I agree with you. Hence the "yeah" 😋

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's my understanding that term limits actually end up making for a worse government, because then you end to with a higher fraction of people who are new at their job. Like any other high-skill job, it can take a year or more before you start to get good at what you're supposed to be doing. Too many freshman means there's less continuity and stability in the government.

But this is all just a vague understanding, I haven't read up on it intentionally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Well without them you end up with highly skilled populous fascists instead of mediocre ones. So what we have too much of already. I'd rather have new ideas with an underskilled attempt to accomplish them than the status quo expertly shifting the overton window to the right. Some instability can be good when the alternative is a set of dynasties focused on their own benefit at the express detriment of others.