Comments by "Geoffrey Lyons" (@granatmof) on "What's The Deal with \"Court Packing\" The Supreme Court?" video.

  1.  @murraybeachtel8585  The constitution already established Ageist doctrine and policy, and ageism would be consistent not inconsistent. The Constitution establishes lower age limits on the elected positions of President (and by extension VP), Senators and Congress. Even our voting laws discriminate based on Age. For every "sharp as a tack" 70+ year old I can easily find 10 precocious 17 year olds with the decision making capacity well above many 30 year olds serving in positions across the country (looking mainly at Republicans who bring snowballs into congress to argue against global warming, and politicians in general who've never sent an email). Children are arbiters of media, consumerism, culture, language, but we of course deny them the ability to vote, never mind it is the adults who by and large are looking to take advantage of children who are responsible for many of the contemporary drivel in those sectors of society. So lets be consistent for consistency's sake and establish upper age limits for all Federally Elected and appointed positions, and lets not pin the hopes of Court ideological safeguards on the survivability of another 87 year old quadruple cancer survivor.
    3
  2. I think we need to Constitutionally establish age limits on Federally elected and appointed positions. Federal elected positions have minimum age requirements, so those positions can simply be assigned complementary ages. So Presidents be limited to 35-65, Senators to 30-70 years old, and Congresspersons 25-75. It would be beneficial therefore to establish a age requirement for the Supreme court to match one of these offices, preferably Senate or congress. I think for safeguards, Congress should also amend the constitution to establish some upper size limit for the court. Something reasonable. Trump has established as president the lack of need to follow precedent for elected officials, and Congress needs to establish as law, Constitutional Amendment, and other means of Presidential and even Congressional and Supreme court non legally binding precedents as fully binding precedent. It was FDR's four terms that made congress amend the constitution to establish term limits on President that were previously established by precedent. Personally, I believe for one such instance the President's first strike nuclear capacity be constitutionally limited unless Congress has declared war against a specific nation state and as a declaration allowed the President the legal authority of first strike. Further they should empower all officers in the military the constitutional power to establish a legal nuclear launch order if the nation is in fact at peace. Nuclear weapons operate as a de facto declaration of war against the world, and the offensive use thereof should be constituitional limited to protect Congress's responsibility to declare war and sign treaties. Of the declared nuclear nations, only China lacks a first use capacity in their official doctrines, and their known weapon stockpiles are limited for protection from other nations first use of nuclear weapons as well as to safeguard against invasions of land or sea. As a further aside, this deterrent is the primary reason why nations antagonistic to any nuclear power would seek to gain nuclear weapons. South Africa is a good example: under Apartheid, they knew their laws made them unfavorable to the world. They pursued nuclear weapons to safeguard invasion from UN/US forces for human rights violations. When they decided to give up Apartheid, they gave also dismantled their nuclear program, although there is still racism involved there, it also avoided nuclear materials lost in a shaky transition.
    1