Reported on USA Today on this date.

Trump gets brutal news as a Florida lawyer files a federal lawsuit to disqualify Trump from the 2024 presidential race due to the “disqualification clause” in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment than bans “insurrectionists” from office.

But it gets WORSE for Trump…

The lawyer declared in his lawsuit that it is “crystal clear” that Trump’s actions leading up to, on, and after January 6 show that he “both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment.”

The lawyer also argues that “the 800-plus page report issued last year by the congressional committee that investigated Trump’s role in alleged efforts to thwart the electoral process, as well as accusations he incited the violence on Capitol Hill that day, are grounds for disqualification.”

The amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and also addressed the citizenship status of freed slaves and the re-integration of the defeated Confederate states back into the Union.

Applying the 14th Amendment’s disqualification rule to Trump has been a rising talking point this month.

The lawyer and a growing chorus of legal scholars, even prominent conservative ones, say that the amendment does not even require a conviction in the courts — but simply a finding that he violated the clause.

This lawsuit will end up in the Supreme Court. If Trump is barred from running for president will that result in a civil war? After all millions of people love the man. Six of the eight GOP candidates would support his candidacy even if he is found guilty in the obstruction trials.

This should apply to members of the Supreme Court too!

Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has fallen multiple times this year and is now using a wheelchair after a speaking freeze for roughly 28 seconds during a press conference on Wednesday. He is 81 years old.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., appeared confused during a vote on a defense appropriations bill Thursday, which prompted a fellow Democratic senator to step in. About 15 seconds into Feinstein’s speech, an aide whispered in her ear. Committee chair Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., then told Feinstein: “Just say aye.” “Aye,” Feinstein said. Feinstein is 90 years old.

From The Hill

Two teachers posted on The Hill. One of the most frequent questions we receive from students when we are teaching about the U.S. Constitution is: why are there minimum age requirements for federally elected offices, but not maximum age requirements?

Although we might be accused of ageism, we think there are legitimate reasons for considering amending the eligibility requirements in Articles I & II of the Constitution.

First, dementia and other cognitive declines increase with age, as many studies indicate. Although many older Americans function well at older ages, federal elected officials are not immune from Alzheimer’s and other cognitive issues. We know that there have been cases in the past where elected officials have become unable to perform their duties, such that their staff members have to compensate. For example, Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who served in the Senate until the age of 100, had to have help with everything from what questions to ask in hearings to physically walking to the floor of the Senate. His chief of staff became his office’s chief decision-maker, which means that an unelected staff person was making decisions for an elected member of Congress. This threatens democratic legitimacy.

Second, although there have been more people elected to Congress in recent election cycles who are under 40, membership in both chambers is still disproportionately much older than the American population. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average age of House members is 58.4 years and that of Senate members is 64.3 years. By comparison, the median age of U.S. residents is 38.2, and nearly half of the population is a member of the generation Z (born 1997 or later) or millennial (born 1981-1996) generations.There’s no denying our new climate reality: We must rethink disaster managementThe Supreme Court’s ‘anything goes’ attitude on the death penalty

There are important reasons to want more younger Americans to serve in public office. First, political science research has found that citizens feel higher levels of external efficacy—the idea that government listens to your concerns and reacts to them—when their representatives look more like them, which is called descriptive representation. Therefore, we could expect higher levels of efficacy and participation among younger Americans if there were more of them in Congress. Additionally, a maximum age would allow younger elected officials with a better understanding of contemporary issues to make decisions on issues like online privacy or the impact of the student loan burden on the nation’s economy. Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony in 2018, in which he infamously had to explain how the internet works to senators, likely would have gone very differently had there been a few younger Americans asking him questions.

The same arguments also apply to the presidency. Although we’ve had younger presidents, like Barack Obama, elected in this century, the last two presidents—Trump and Biden—are of an entirely different generation than most Americans. With the possibility that they could face each other in a rematch in 2024, when Trump is 77 and Biden is 82, the question raised by our survey is applicable: how old is too old?

David McLennan is a professor of political science at Meredith College and director of the Meredith Poll. Whitney Ross Manzo is an associate professor of political science at Meredith College and associate director of the Meredith Poll

A constitutional amendment is needed.