Senator Dianne Feinstein's career was filled with firsts, including first woman mayor of San Francisco and one of two of the first women elected to the U.S. Senate from California.
Make it more scientifically oriented, peg it to the average age of noticeable mental decline caused by aging, at present that’s still mid to late 60s but it’ll feel less “arbitrary”
Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
75 is too high. I’d do 65 at most.
Make it more scientifically oriented, peg it to the average age of noticeable mental decline caused by aging, at present that’s still mid to late 60s but it’ll feel less “arbitrary”
Unfortunately, anything that isn’t a hard number is just going to turn into a political cluster fuck.
“What does ‘noticable’ mean? Let’s argue this for 30 years and never come to a decision.”
The best way to “future” proof it would be to make the age get lower every decade until another constitutional amendment is passed.
Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
Agree. There are actual cognitive tests that exists today and that’s used by medical personnel.
They could be purpose to test those in office as they get older, the same way that pilots have to get tested medically to maintain their license.
Maybe so, I was trying to be generous