Rahm Emanuel has apparently launched his 2028 presidential bid. A wonky story about him appeared prominently in today's Washington Post, on the subject of his ideas for fixing education in America. He also recently tossed out a different provocative idea during a recent speech, which further indicates he is in the process of building a political platform to run on. Rahm Emanuel is one of those politicians with an outsized opinion of his own popularity and a strong conviction that the country is ready for him to lead it. That's nothing new -- people like that are a dime a dozen in Washington -- but his new idea is certainly an interesting one: instituting a mandatory retirement age for everyone in the federal government.

Here's the story, from Politico:

Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he wants to institute a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the president and across branches of government, a pipe dream of a call from the potential White House hopeful that would bar him from serving a second term as president.

"You're 75 years old: done," the former Chicago mayor and ambassador to Japan said Wednesday at a Center for American Progress event. "And that would be in the legislative branch, it'd be in the executive branch -- including the Cabinet -- and it'd be also in the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts."

Emanuel, who is 66, would be 69 when sworn into office if he runs for and wins the 2028 presidential contest. He would be 73 at the start of his second term, and would, by his own standard, be unable to serve all four years. He acknowledged this when pressed by Politico at a Christian Science Monitor roundtable Wednesday afternoon.

Emanuel insists that "of course" this would apply to him, even though it would bar him from a second term as president. He had some advice for the 75-plus crowd as well: "You can't serve in the armed forces, you can't serve in private sector jobs -- go work on your golf swing, it's not that good to begin with."

At first glance, this could be a very popular proposal. Last time around in the presidential race, the voters were initially offered the choice between an 81-year-old (Joe Biden) and a 78-year-old (Donald Trump), and more than a few voters were disgusted with the gerontocracy this represented. According to the article, "roughly two-thirds of Americans support age limits for federal elected officials and the Supreme Court."

But then Rahm indicates that he is not actually serious about effecting this change:

Emanuel, a former representative, said he would push for legislation to set the limit rather than attempt a constitutional amendment. (The Constitution sets a minimum age for members of Congress but not a maximum, and establishes no limits for the Supreme Court.) It's not clear whether that legislation itself would be constitutional -- and could be a tough sell in a Congress where the median age for senators is 64.

It actually is pretty clear that merely passing a law through Congress would not meet constitutional muster. Judicial appointments are currently for life, period. This is a bedrock of the judicial system, in fact, because lifelong tenure is seen as a bulwark against political interference with the judiciary. So the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to laugh right out of court any attempt by Congress and a president to impose mandatory retirement ages on them (and all other federal judges).

The other two provisions would also likely be found to be unconstitutional as well. Since the Constitution explicitly states minimum age requirements for serving in Congress or in the White House -- but no maximums -- then instituting a mandatory retirement age by legislation alone would almost certainly be seen as constitutional overreach. The only part of any legislation which attempted to do so which might pass constitutional muster would be the restrictions on everyone else -- everyone not elected president or to Congress, or appointed and confirmed to be a judge. Even limiting cabinet members might not be seen as allowable, since they are also confirmed by the Senate (who should know before they vote how old the nominees are).

No, the only way to really get serious about this proposal is to offer it up as a constitutional amendment. Doing so would remove the question of constitutionality, since if ratified it would then become part of the Constitution itself -- which puts it beyond reach of even the Supreme Court to overturn.

Passing constitutional amendments is almost impossible, it bears mentioning. Doing so requires vast bipartisan buy-in, both at the national level and at the state level (since three-fourths of the states have to ratify any proposed amendment for it to be adopted). But perhaps it might have a chance -- at least after Donald Trump exits the stage. If it wasn't seen as a direct attack on Trump (since he'd be out of office), then perhaps it might be appealing to Republicans. Especially if they were faced with President Emanuel, who would be automatically considered ineligible for a second term in office if the amendment was ratified. That might spur a few Republican-run state legislatures to vote for it.

Whether it is a good idea or not is open to debate, of course. But after seeing both Biden and Trump visibly lose mental acuity and exhibit rather low energy levels while president, perhaps the country might be open to such a proposal. Politicians in Congress from both parties have certainly stayed on long past their expiration date, often refusing to step down and actually dying while still in office (after a period where they are so addled that their aides and staff wind up doing their jobs for them).

Personally, I don't take Rahm Emanuel's budding presidential candidacy very seriously, since he just doesn't inspire any confidence at all as a politician and doesn't seem to have any built-in constituency behind him. He offended plenty of Democrats while he was part of Barack Obama's team, and hasn't done much of anything to endear himself to voters since.

So while I have to give Emanuel credit for making this rather bold proposal, I also have to conclude that he is obviously not serious about it at all. He is a smart guy, after all -- smart enough to know full well that such an idea passed by Congress and signed into law by a president would almost certainly be struck down (either in full, or for every officeholder and judge at the very least) by the Supreme Court. So his proposal is nothing short of a political stunt, designed to get people talking about him. Which he has achieved (I have to admit, since I just wrote a whole column about him), but which I firmly believe isn't going to help his dreams of becoming president one tiny bit.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant