Latest news with #StromThurmond
Gulf Today
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
It's time for age limits for members of Congress
Nathan L. Gonzales, Tribune News Service In a country bitterly divided on virtually everything, from the major to the mundane, there's one issue that could unite Republicans and Democrats: age limits. An uncomfortable conversation about the acuity of aging politicians, from Republicans Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Thad Cochran of Mississippi to Democrats Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Dianne Feinstein of California, has only been magnified by former President Joe Biden's years in office and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's closing time on Capitol Hill. Then there's former Texas Rep. Kay Granger, now 82, who was discovered by The Dallas Express staying at an assisted living facility toward the end of her House term as she dealt with what was later reported as 'dementia issues.' San Francisco Democrats made news recently over a proposed resolution to call politicians in California to voluntarily retire at an age to be determined later. But the country and Congress should consider something more permanent, specific and restrictive. One of the first criticisms of any suggestion about age limits on elected officials is usually discrimination — the idea that you can't discriminate against candidates based on their age. But the Constitution already does so, with age minimums. Members of the House have to be 25 years old, (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). Members of the Senate have to be 30 years old (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3). And presidents have to be 35 years old (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5). So the age discrimination argument shouldn't even be a part of the conversation. Considering the general bias toward the perceived wisdom of the Founding Fathers, a critic could say that the framers who included an age minimum would have included age maximums if they had wanted. But life expectancies were considerably different more than 200 years ago. The average life expectancy was closer to 40 years in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. And even though the first six presidents served into their mid-to-late 60s, the Founding Fathers couldn't have fathomed elected officials serving into their 80s and 90s. At 81, Benjamin Franklin was 15 years older than any other signer of the Constitution. Today, he wouldn't rank among the top 10 oldest members of Congress. At a time when Congress can barely agree on a framework for when to reach an agreement, passing a constitutional amendment seems particularly ambitious. A constitutional amendment must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states with an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. There's been only one constitutional amendment passed in the past 50 years. The 27th Amendment, first submitted in 1789, was ratified in 1992 and effectively said that any raise Congress votes to give itself can't take effect until after the next election so constituents can decide whether they deserve it. (The 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 years, passed in 1971.) There could be some initial pushback from Republicans because age limits might be seen as a shot at the current 78-year-old resident of the White House and his ability to do the job. And there's the challenge of asking current members of Congress to limit their own tenures in Congress. So there might have to be some sort of provision to grandfather in (or, in some cases, to great-grandfather in) sitting lawmakers to exempt them from the new restrictions. That would leave us waiting a long time for the fruits of such an effort to be seen. But that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile endeavour. While longtime incumbents often rouse strong feelings of loyalty and deference, it's hard to imagine that lawmakers who work beside elderly colleagues believe it's in the best interest of their constituents and the country for them to serve into their golden years. A considerable majority of Americans are open to this idea. More specifically, 82 percent of Republicans and 76% of Democrats support a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center poll. But landing on a specific maximum age might be more difficult than the daunting task of passing a constitutional amendment: 85 years old? 80? For some reference points, senators in Canada, who are appointed and not elected, have a mandatory retirement age of 75. In the Catholic Church, only cardinals younger than 80 can participate in a papal conclave to choose the next pope. Just 1% of S&P 1500 companies have a CEO age 78 or older, which is interesting considering the gravity of work lawmakers have to do on Capitol Hill. The average age for an S&P 1500 CEO is 58, which is close to the median age of a House member (57.5) in the 119th Congress, according to Pew. The median age for a senator is 64.7. But that masks some of the oldest members, including Iowa's Charles E. Grassley (91), Vermont's Bernie Sanders (83), McConnell (83), Maine's Angus King (81), Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal (79), Vermont's Peter Welch (77), Hawaii's Mazie K. Hirono (77) and Oregon's Ron Wyden (75). Idaho's Jim Risch (81), Massachusetts' Edward J. Markey (78) and Rhode Island's Jack Reed (75) have announced they'll seek reelection in 2026. New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen (78) bowed out recently and will soon be joined in retirement by Richard J. Durbin (80) of Illinois. In the House there are 41 members age 75 or older, with Dina Titus of Nevada and Donald S. Beyer Jr. of Virginia joining them in the next couple of months. The eldest members include Harold Rogers of Kentucky (87); Maxine Waters (86), Nancy Pelosi (85), Doris Matsui (80) and John Garamendi (80) of California; Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland (85); James E. Clyburn of South Carolina (84); Danny K. Davis (83) and Jan Schakowsky (80) of Illinois; John Carter of Texas (83); Frederica S. Wilson of Florida (82); Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut (82); Virginia Foxx of North Carolina (81); Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri (80); and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey (80). Critics of age limits might say that institutional knowledge is important to a functioning Congress. But how's that working out? Elderly wisdom doesn't seem to be helping smooth things along these days. And there are plenty of members younger than 70 who know how things work. Of course, the precise amendment language would have to be worked out, perhaps by focusing on age when taking office. An official age 70 or older can't be sworn in, for example. That benchmark would have affected only three presidential inaugurations: Biden in 2021 (78) and Trump in both 2017 (70) and 2025 (78). It would have kept West Virginia Republican Jim Justice, 73, out of the Senate, and it would shake up next year's Senate race in Maine, which features GOP Sen. Susan Collins, 72, and potentially Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, 77. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, who hasn't ruled out a Senate run next year, would be 69 in January 2027 if he happened to run and win. Rather than a constitutional amendment, some folks plan to use elections to force elderly members into retirement. Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg committed to spending $20 million through his outside group, Leaders We Deserve, to help younger, progressive challengers win primaries against older incumbents in safely Democratic districts. And younger primary challengers have already popped up this cycle against Pelosi, Schakowsky, Georgia Rep. David Scott (79) and others. Going by history, most of these efforts will fall short. And some people will deem it a vote of confidence in the elderly and a refutation of young people. But in reality, it will have more to do with the powerful advantages of incumbency, including name ID and fundraising. Considering the huge hurdles to be overcome, I realize that this column might have been written in vain. But if a C paper written by a 19-year-old college student could propel the 27th Amendment to be ratified after 200 years, then there's a chance the country could finally get it right on age limits.
Associated Press
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
AP explains why Cory Booker broke a Senate record that stood 68 years
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker broke the record for the longest floor speech in recorded Senate history when he bested Sen. Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. AP explains why he did it. (AP Video: Nathan Ellgren)
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Cory Booker's marathon Senate speech broke record, but it wasn't a filibuster
Claim: U.S. Sen. Cory Booker broke the record for a standing filibuster by speaking for 25 hours, surpassing the 1957 record of Sen. Strom Thurmond, who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. Rating: Context: Booker broke the record for the longest speech on the Senate floor, but it was not filibuster. A filibuster is a speech designed to delay or prevent a vote on a bill. Booker was not trying to prevent specific legislation from passing but was speaking to show Democrats' resistance to President Donald Trump. For more than 25 hours starting March 31, 2025, and running into the next day, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., gave a marathon speech on the Senate floor, expressing resistance to President Donald Trump. According to many posts about the occasion, Booker was performing a filibuster, breaking the record set by Sen. Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act. One post on X stated: Booker has now broken the record as the longest single-person filibuster speech in the United States Senate. The previous record was held by Strom Thurmond, a Democratic United States senator from South Carolina, who filibustered to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. While Booker did break the record for the longest speech ever made on the Senate floor — he spoke for 25 hours and 5 minutes — technically, he was not filibustering legislation. As such, this claim is mostly true. According to the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is a term for the specific act of speaking on the Senate floor in order to delay or prevent a vote from taking place for a piece of legislation. Thurmond, according to the Senate website, spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act — part of landmark legislation intended to protect the civil rights of all citizens and end segregation. The act established a Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, empowered a temporary Commission on Civil Rights and gave the attorney general power to investigate and prosecute voting rights infringements. Opposing the legislation, Thurmond began his marathon filibuster by calling the bill "unnecessary" arguing that states had already enacted legislation making it unlawful to intimidate or hinder a voter in exercising his voting rights. He went on to catalog all the laws in various states. The full text of his filibuster can be found here. Despite Thurmond's efforts, the bill passed hours after his speech. After finishing his 25-hour, 5-minute speech, Booker, who is Black, said on MSNBC: "To be candid, Strom Thurmond's record always kind of … really irked me, that he would be the longest speech — that the longest speech, on our great Senate floor, was someone who was trying to stop people like me from being in the Senate." Booker was not speaking to delay or oppose a particular bill, as a filibuster requires. His stated intention was to disrupt "business as usual" on the Senate floor and express Democratic opposition to Trump, expressing concern about the federal government's budget cuts on education, medical research, social security, health care and more. Per his website, his opening remarks were as follows: I rise tonight with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able. […] These are not normal times in our nation. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate. The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent and we all must do more to stand against them. Booker also referenced the late civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis: You think we got civil rights one day because Strom Thurmond — after filibustering for 24 hours — you think we got civil rights because he came to the floor one day and said, "I've seen the light." No, we got civil rights because people marched for it, sweat for it and John Lewis bled for it. […] To hate him [Thurmond] is wrong, and maybe my ego got too caught up in if I stood here maybe, maybe — just maybe — I could break this record of the man who tried to stop the rights upon which I stand. […] I'm not here, though, because of his speech. I'm here despite his speech. I'm here because as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful. Booker ended his speech by referencing Lewis again, and calling on people to oppose the current administration's policies and cause "good trouble": It is time to heed the words of the man I began this whole thing with: John Lewis. I beg folks to take his example of his early days where he made himself determined to show his love for his country at a time the country didn't love him. To love this country so much, to be such a patriot that he endured beatings savagely on the Edmund Pettus bridge, at lunch counters, on Freedom Rides, he said he had to do something. He would not normalize a moment like this. He would not just go along with business as usual. He wouldn't know how to solve it but there's one thing that he would do that I hope we all can do, that I think I did a little bit of tonight. He said for us to go out and cause some good trouble. Necessary trouble to redeem the soul of our nation. I want you to redeem the dream. Let's be bold in America, not demean and degrade Americans. Not divide us against each other. […] This is a moral moment. It's not left or right, it's right or wrong. Let's get in good trouble. My friends, Madame President, I yield the floor. Highlights of Booker's speech can be viewed here: Thurmond made it through his speech by reportedly taking long steam baths ahead of time to dry himself out so he would not urinate. Booker, meanwhile, said he hadn't eaten for days and stopped drinking fluids the night before his speech. "About Filibusters and Cloture." U.S. Senate. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. Beggin, Riley and Eric Lagatta. "Sen. Cory Booker Says He Didn't Eat for Days, Stopped Hydrating before History-Making Speech." USA TODAY, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Civil Rights Act of 1957, September 9, 1957." U.S. Capitol - Visitor Center. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Congressional Record — Volume 103, Part 2." U.S. Senate, Aug. 1957, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Cory Booker Sets a Record with Marathon Senate Speech. Will It Rally Anti-Trump Resistance?" AP News, 1 Apr. 2025, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. Fortinsky, Sarah. "Booker Says It 'Irked' Him That Thurmond Held Previous Record to 'Stop People like Me from Being in the Senate.'" The Hill , 1 Apr. 2025, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Highlights from Cory Booker's Record 25-Hour Senate Speech against Trump's Actions." Associated Press, 2 Apr. 2025, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. Memmott, Mark. "How Did Strom Thurmond Last Through His 24-Hour Filibuster?" NPR, 7 Mar. 2013. NPR, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Strom Thurmond: A Featured Biography." U.S. Senate. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "The Filibuster That Tried and Failed to Stop the Advancement of Equality, 59 Years Ago Today." The World from PRX, 29 Aug. 2016, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. Tully, Tracey. "Cory Booker's 25-Hour Senate Speech Strikes a Chord in New Jersey." The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2025. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. VIDEO: Booker Launches Floor Speech by Saying: "I Am Going to Stand Here until I No Longer Can. I Am Going to Speak up." | U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Accessed 2 Apr. 2025. "Watch the Moment Cory Booker Ended His Record 25-Hour Senate Speech." Associated Press, 1 Apr. 2025, Accessed 2 Apr. 2025.
Washington Post
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Thurmond set a record opposing civil rights. A Black senator broke it.
Sen. Strom Thurmond took a long steam bath to dehydrate his body for what he was about to do on a sticky August night in 1957. The Civil Rights Act was about to pass and Thurmond, a Democrat from South Carolina who was an unabashed segregationist, broke with the Southern Democratic ranks to stand alone and speak — for 24 hours and 18 minutes — against it.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Jersey senator Cory Booker fasted, stopped hydrating before 25-hour floor speech
New Jersey senator Cory Booker broke a nearly 70-year-old record Tuesday with a marathon speech on the Senate floor criticizing Trump administration policies, which he spent days preparing for. 'I didn't know how long I could go. I'm so grateful I lasted for 25 hours [and four minutes],' Booker told reporters after leaving the floor. Booker ignored a question about whether he wore a catheter or a diaper, or had any assistance to avoid using the bathroom. Instead he described his pre-speech regimen, which including starting to fast on Friday, avoiding fluids after Sunday night and reading more than 1,100 pages of research. 'I fasted for days into it. I stopped drinking water a long time ago. I think that had good and bad benefits. I definitely started cramping up from lack of water,' he said. 'So there's just a lot of tactics I was using to try to make sure that I could stand for that long. 'I really spent time dehydrating myself beforehand so I did not have to go to the bathroom,' he said. During the speech, he occasionally sipped from glasses of water on his desk — which he hovered around throughout — and did not sit down. As the hours ticked away, Booker drew millions of views on social media. The speech broke a previous record set by Sen. Strom Thurmond, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. 'To be candid, Strom Thurmond's record always kind of just really irked me — that he would be the longest speech, that the longest speech on our great Senate floor was someone who was trying to stop people like me from being in the Senate,' Booker told Rachel Maddow later Tuesday. 'So to surpass that was something I didn't know if we could do, but it was something that was really, once we got closer, became more and more important to me.'
