DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What Should The Requirements Be For A President?

This is not about a political party or a partisan issue. It's a simple question of what you believe the requirements should be for a person to be eligible for the office of president.

First let's look at the what the constitution requires.



We all know that many companies and corporations in our nation refuse to even interview a convicted felon, much less hire them. Yet the Constitution makes no mention of a convicted felon being ineligible of being president.

We all know that in this day and age many corporations and companies delve deep into the personal finances of potential employees and often times will not hire a person in financial difficulty. Yet the Constitution has no requirement that any president present financial records of any kind.

So I guess the question boils down to this. Should a person not meet the same requirements that private industry deems appropriate for someone to be fit for employment?

What is your opinion of the current requirements according to the constitution and do you think that in and of itself is enough to qualify someone to be president?

If not, what do you think the requirements should be in order for someone to qualify to be president of The United States of America?

What Should The Requirements Be For A President?

LOL!!!!

Sure. You all love Pseudo President Joe Biden, so we need a president just like that.

His requirements? Just 4.

1. Make sure and sell out your country for money with foreign entities who want the US destroyed. That's pretty much every member of the Democratic party with many Republicans included.

2. Be an open Chinese agent in league with China.

3. Have a son who makes millions of dollars doing something he has no experience at working for China and Ukraine.

4. Continue to help this candidate by stealing elections with fake mail in ballets and flipping the voting numbers with third world voting software.

...........Also spend 50 years in Washington accomplishing NOTHING for your constituents.......................

So you have zero intentions of answering the question. Just what I thought. You're only here to make noise with zero evidence as per usual.

Q is that you? smh. Shut up.

Did you like your own post?

On to the topic:

I would add "free from any felony convictions and crimes of dishonesty (i.e. theft)"

We could probably do away with the whole "citizen at the time the Constitution was founded" language, haha.

Must be free from undue financial distress.

Must have previously served as a public servant?

Must be Browns fan.

I think the requirements are fine.

If I had my requirements, I would make it 45, but I add that to make my point. We have never elected anyone 35. We have had several in their early 40's...and that is fine.

My point is the American people decide who is fit and who isn't.

It is dangerous ground when some act of congress starts to define exactly who is fit and who isn't. You allow the American voter to decide that.

If you open it up to this criteria, you open it up to others. It's a place we dare not go. Corrupt political minds would soon start using it as a weapon for their gain.

The framers knew this.

A few I'd like to see:

Anyone who's declared bankruptcy more than once, either personal or a business in which he/she was an owner or major shareholder should not be permitted to run.

All business holdings, investment portfolios, board memberships, and executive positions of the candidate and his immediate family should be made public.

All required personal documentation...tax returns, birth certificates, military service, current loans, etc. should be made public.

Off the top of my head, in addition to over 35 I would put an under (some number) age at the time they are elected.

I think they should have their past 7 years tax returns made public at least 2x months prior to the election. Along with bank statements. To show no financial improprieties.

I would have never thought it necessary to say that they had to hold some other public office but I think that is a good idea. But I would make the criteria stricter. At least a mayor of a city with at least 50,000 people, or a governor of a state, or a member of congress. And having had completed your full term in office.

That would cover it for me. The goal should be 100% transparency.

All of that can be vetted by the American voter without an amendment to the constitution.

If you don't like what you see, or don't see, don't vote for the person. Pretty simple.

Again, this is a slippery slope if we start down the slope.

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

And when they hide it?

Ain't that the truth.

To that end, I say we amend the Constitution to make the president some random person over the age of 40 who hates crowds and public speaking.

I'm joking, but sadly, I feel like that actually could land us a person better suited for office than what we've become accustomed to.

Sorry, I'm not interested in the job.

Condoleezza Rice fits the criteria. ALL the criteria.
And we'd have a POTUS who actually played Brahms on the piano for Queen Elizabeth. So, diplomacy points, as well (I doubt she *woof!*ed Her Majesty after the recital).

not campaigning, just saying...

I would LOVE if Condoleeza Rice ran for Prez. I know it won't happen, but please let it happen.

Wow. Yes. Wouldn't that be a dream candidate? Sadly, she has always stated that she wants nothing to do with the office. ICYMI: George W Bush wrote her in on his 2020 ballot rather than voting for Trump.

...and she's a Browns fan! I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. She'd be the best candidate we've had since God knows when.

You're hired.

I certainly understand what you're saying. Yet there are considerations that the forefathers of our nation could not have seen coming. We live in a much different world today than we did in 1776.

I thought jfanent had a pretty good overall outline.

I would add there should be no nepotism allowed. Immediate family members should not be able to be appointed to any top government positions within The White House.

Why? Suppose that a family member of the President is preeminently qualified for a certain position? For instance, suppose the relative of the highest ranked general in the military is elected. That general, who might well be the very best candidate for National Security Advisor, or Defense Secretary, would be excluded ... really for no good reason.

There are multiple people in our nation that are pretty much equally qualified for almost every position. Many of the things we thought we didn't have to consider before must be considered now.

Nepotism opens the door for a direct conflict of interest from a business standpoint and the dangers far outweigh the benefits.

I would agree that is possible, but not necessarily certain.

I have a couple of friends who I am closer to in many ways that I am to my family. Theoretically, they could be a big danger as well.

I would also add that there are really 2 levels of importance in selecting a candidate for these positions: qualifications, and a level of comfort with the President. That comfort "could" be a problem no matter who the President nominates.

I can see where it could be. I do think it's a rare occurrence in your example however of a military general being "friends they are closer to than family" with a politician running for office. As with a former vice president they may have some history of working together I'm not sure that qualifies as per your description. Here is a good read on why many employers and even some state governments currently have active nepotism policies....

Why You Need a Nepotism Policy and a Sample Nepotism Policy

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/why-you-need-this-nepotism-policy-and-a-sample-4798759

They just came from England where a King threw people in jail all the time and made up rules to suit his fancy.

I think they knew what they were doing. I am sure discussions of all sorts came up with many various requirements. In the end, they left it as is and decided to all the voters to decide.

You say felons. Others may say black people, or women, or people with red hair, or whatever. While your point is far more realistic than the examples I posed, who is to say at some point in the future some other crazy example as we see it is imposed?

It needs to stay as is. Natural born and 35 seem good enough to me.

As I said, I might make it 40 or 45 since people grew up faster back then. Life back then forced that. Parents didn't keep their children under their wing until they were 18-19-20 years old.

I thought we were discussing qualifications to be President?

I don't think there should be any more "rules" written. As Ballpeen pointed out, the things listed are already made public, and if they are not, we all have the choice to not vote for that person.

What I would like to see is cap spending on elections. Level the field a little more, rather than have big donor candidates rule the airwaves, get the face time with voters etc. Make all candidates work with the same campaign budget, and make it a reasonable sum.

This is probably the biggest thing

That and say a 2 month campaign prior to each of the primary and general elections. These people effectively start presidential campaigns 2 years ahead of time! But neither will happen because broadcasters and cable networks make way too much money in advertising. There is no reason a presidential campaign couldn't be run on around 5-10 million IF they all had to stick to that spending level. And congressional races could be 1-2 million. State level races would cost MUCH LESS.

There is a big difference between requirements and qualifications.

Let’s just say that the last one met the requirements but was not qualified.

The majority of Americans meet the requirements, few are qualified.

I agree....I misspoke. I meant requirements.

Are you and those that think like you ever going to show the rest of us any proof of this crap? Or are you going to get together for a weinie roast and capital storm party...

You know, like the ones that are hiding behind the skirts of the Republican Senate? Bunch of Girlie men.. no courage. You know the results of a commission and you are afraid of finding out..

Shameful...

Clearly the first thing that comes to mind is a background check... A deep dive by the DOD. No Criminal or credit issues.

These two items are more or less common sense. I mean, if you have or have had financial problems, you can be bought. As Trump is suspected of being by Putin..(note, I said suspected)

Drug Test.....

You can't get a job running a lawn mower around here with landscapers without a drug test.

The constitution has been amended 27 times. It's a living document. Let's not pretend the forefathers were perfect or had crystal balls.

You would think that people would expect a president to at least meet the standards of most corporate jobs. But as we can see, some think if you were born in America and are 35 years old, you too qualify as someone who can be president!

I am fairly well educated on the constitution. I understand it has been amended. The deal is that you act like felons didn't exist back then, like it is something new to be considered.

Don't act like this is a virgin topic of conversation. It's been discussed before. I recall a professor of mine discussing this very subject in a class I was taking. That must have been 1973 or 74...that is what, 48-49 years ago?

At any rate, it can be a stimulating conversation, yet one in which I have already participated. I gave my opinion.

That sums it up for me, so I suppose I will bow out.

Carry on.

At the time the constitution was written, the actual people writing it were considered criminals by England. Unless of course you believe those writing the constitution felt even they themselves were not fit to be president there's a pretty clear reason why it wasn't written in at the time.

We were actually still under England's grasp in 1776 so all of them were committing a felony just by writing the constitution according to the ruling country at the time.

None of that applies any longer.