Which is why any/every politician who has any sort of an idea about anything whatsoever and any aspirations toward higher office would be an absolute ignorant fool to claim he would attempt to pass a constitutional amendment in order to accomplish any of his campaign issues regardless of what they are.

In the year of our Lord, 2026, everyone already knows if you're serious about a political issue, you simply write an Executive Order and proclaim it.

I'm not kidding: Overton window. Lawmakers and potential/wannabe lawmakers are actually those whose business it is to detect where that window actually is and then situate themselves within it.

I'm not a fan of Rahm Emanuel, but after well over a decade of two old men leading this country, I would say anyone who is not suggesting something different than that dynamic is a seriously shitty politician.

But his presidential aspirations aside, I think the idea is a good one and deserves a constitutional amendment.

OK, sure, 75 isn't old for some and is too old for others. But the point is to simply put a limit on how long one can do federal service - across the board. All branches, all offices. Make it to 75, then step aside for the young 'uns and work on your golf game.

I like your point about how this really is a bipartisan issue, and federal respresentatives and senators and state legislatures might actually buy into an amendment as it will 'hurt' both sides equally. More importantly, these folks' constituencies may support it in a bipartisan way: show Grandpa the door, no matter which party. Doddering is doddering.

Not that I have much hope, but I'd like to see some more reputable politicians besides Emanuel try to push for the Amendment option.