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

I already brought up the point about England some points back.

The constitution applied to the laws of the new land, not the old. Now if you are saying a person should be disqualified if they are a convicted felony in another country, well, I don't know what to say.

I said I wasn't going to say anything, but your comment was so absurd, I had to say something.

Common sense measures to prevent a criminal or even the risk of them hiring unqualified relatives seems absurd to some. The evidence is clear that things we never considered necessary before are necessary now. The forefathers didn't have crystal balls. Changes are certainly needed.

And while we are at it.. let's look at what the founding fathers would have thought had they been able to look into the future towards the type of weapons that we have today..

Does anyone think they'd feel the same today as they did when the biggest, baddist hand held weapon was a LeMat?

I thought republicans didn't want to discuss anything in the past... So lets just look forward...

No convicted Criminals.... Does that work for you?

I won't address that specifically but things are certainly much different in todays world and our forefather could not see into the future.

The constitution wasn't even ratified until 1789 and within only two years there were ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Even in their own times they recognized how flawed the document was. By 1804 the constitution had been amended twelve times.

Some people seem to conclude that since the forefathers put it writing over 230 years ago that it must be right today. History has brought out the fact this simply isn't true. History has taught us that it's a living document that needs to be changed over time.

The very same people who some think that our forefathers wrote some flawless and unchangeable document must remember according to that train of thought slavery should be legal. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote and so on. But when some people feel the Constitution should never be subject to change it prevents logic from entering into the picture as it has 27 times before in our nations history.

The constitution is about the past, present, and future.

Wouldn't that depend on the charge, the crime and the timeframe? If a 18 year old was charged with a crime, did their time, and now 25 years later wants to run for president.

There are a lot of variables in such a designation, I think each would have to be looked at on it's own. Hence why putting it in writing, makes it more difficult.

Some people don't believe in redemption. Some people need everything in their life spelled out. Some people don't have trust in the voters.

No, I don't think it matters that they paid their debt to society.. I believe it's about character.. They've already shown a lack of character in their lives.

The job is just too damn important.. You have the lives of every American in the palm of your hands as President.

We can't afford to allow a criminal or ex-criminal to be in the top spot.. No way no how.

Don't vote for them.

Thats not it at all...

It's about the job. The President of the US has to be clean in every aspect.. No BS. This is the person with their finger on the Nuke Trigger. This is the person that on a whim and set the entire world on fire.

Name another job with that much hanging in the balance.

To trust that to a person who, in their past, showed a lack of good decision making and a lack of character is stupid.

j/c

I don't think age, criminal record or any other additional restriction/requirement needs to be added.

There is only one requirement for me - complete and 100% transparency. So when people talk about foreign influence or financial leverage - yes, we need to know and be able to clearly see that. If everything is transparent - then the criminal record and any other issues will be there for the voters to see and decide upon.

Thank-you...and those issues you bring up can be dealt with through legislation, and I don't disagree.

I would say that should apply to all public officials seeking office. At least with-in reason. There is a line between reasonable and trying to dig up dirt. I think most can figure out where those lines might be.

Corporations don't believe in redemption either. They won't hire convicted felons. I guess the president of our nation should be held to a lower standard than what's required for a mid level corporate job. For some reason I'm not surprised you feel that way.

Coca Cola does not discriminate against convicted felons.

There are many corporations on this list of companies who hire felons.

https://www.hirefelons.org/best-jobs-for-felons/

As far as politics, including the Presidency, once a person has served their sentence, if people find them to be qualified, let the people have their voice. In today's world, it is all but impossible to hide a prior criminal conviction. The voters will find out. Personally. I believe there is a large segment of our population who will never vote for a felon, reformed or not, and no matter the circumstances. The people can decide this.

The number of corporations that do are much higher. Plus, what jobs at what level would they hire a felon? We aren't talking about a soda delivery guy or a person working in a warehouse here. I'm all for the people deciding. Once a candidate is deemed qualified.

You don't know that.

Sure I do. And sadly you do too.

Companies hire the best candidate for the job. Do you think it would be great PR for it to be found a convicted felon was a member of your corporate team? What are the odds that would be a convicted felon? Not very damned high. How many lawyers do you know that are convicted felons?

You know as well as I do that most mid corporate level jobs, lawyers, and many professions themselves ban felons, much less corporations themselves.

I have no clue why you would even try to debate something so obvious.

I am not debating. I know I am right and you are wrong.

Another thread talking to Pit ends in useless blabber.

Later

You have gotten hilarious in your old age.

at this point, the age requirement should be dropped.

we just watched a 74 year old man glued to his phone like a teenager. we had a grown adult with a teenage mentality running the country for 4 years, so what's the point of the age requirement? at least it being 35?

being 35 doesn't mean you have your crap together as a person. it doesn't mean you have enough - or even relevant - experience for the job. being 45, 55, 65 doesn't mean anything. just means you haven't hit your expiration date yet.

my requirements:

- 21 years old

- US Citizen

- All financial documents and tax returns released, with a detailed record of how much money you owe and to WHO.

- Anything sealed must be unsealed (I.E. transcripts, criminal record, etc)

_________

none of that disqualifies anyone from running. it simply ensures that the american people have enough initial information on your background. i know in general that some of you guys despise career government employees. but i personally like it because they have a track record that can be easily analyzed, for better or worse.

for example, Senator Rubio from Florida had his 2nd home foreclosed on, and has "Accidentally" mixed up his personal accounts with his campaign accounts in the past.

now, should that disqualify him from running? no. people screw up personal finances all the time. it happens, right?

buuuuutttt, why would i trust a guy who can't even keep his personal finances in order with the country's finances?

from the conservative viewpoint: joe biden has a 40 year political history of doing a whole lot of nothing. and the only reason he was relevant was because of Obama. So when he finally does something, its a bunch of stuff they don't like.

should that disqualify Biden from running? no, buuuuuttt the people should know about it.

thats the biggest thing with Trump. most of his background would've had literally every candidate who ran for president dropped from the race before the primary debates even started. but people got so caught up with his celebrity nonsense - and hatred for the other side - that they didn't pay any attention to the lawsuits filed against him, his multiple bankruptcies, his level of debt and WHO he owed money to.

I don't mind the 35 minimum.... but I think we also need to add a maximum age... for all of government...

Agree. I also think every government position should come with 8 year term limits. If it is good for the President, it is good with the Senate, The House, and the Courts.

I am not big on term limits for elected officials because the voters of that district or state can vote them out in any election. If the people of NY as an example are happy with the representation of Chuck Schumer, even though I don't like him, it's up to the people of that state. Like Swish, I like continuity of government. Eight years would hardly provide that. Experience is more important than you think. Experience in the Supreme court is even more important. Lifetime works just fine since it is a unelected position.

For President, if some law was passed that nobody could run for a new term as president after age 75, I could go along with that, however I don't think that would pass constitutional standards without ratification.

You have to understand that adding or subtracting articles from the constitution is supposed to be hard. If it wasn't, every Tom, Dick, and Harry with some wild idea would be seeking amendments.

Here is the process if some are unclear:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-...nstitution.html

below is a site i have found useful over the years. Some interesting reading in these pages.

https://constitution.org

I can follow that logic - but then, why have limits on the Presidency? The same logic would apply there too - voters can vote the POTUS out, no need for term limits? I don't have a strong opinion either way - but I am interested why the differential.

I don't agree.. For a person to work for the Military and be exposed to any confidential or secret or Top secret information or material, they need to pass a background check.

I remember an FBI agent coming to my house to question me and all I did was be the boss in a "non possessing" facility. (non possessing means I had no direct access to sensitive information, but I had employees that did while working on site at a DOD facility)

Had I not passed the check, I would have been let go. That's as simple as it gets.

I don't think a presidential candidate should have any less a background check... After all, the President can start WW3 in a blink of an eye.

And you bring up a very interesting point. Why should someone be considered fit to be president if they can't even pass a complete background check that every member of the DOJ, CIA and Homeland Security has to in order to have a top secret clearance?

A president gets briefed on all of that information daily. People seem ready and willing to accept a very low bar.

Exactly, furthermore, every person that runs for the senate or house who will be briefed on delicate issues or problems should go though the same process before they are allowed to run for office.

I'd even suggest that State congressmen go through that as well.

Also, appointed and elected judges should be vetted..

Why in heavens name would we want anyone who can be blackmailed to sit in important seats... why.

I'll even go one step further... if while seated in office, it's discovered you committed an act that would be called a felony, you should be bounced..

As for fairness, if you are a Republican senator and you are found guilty you must be replaced with another republican... fewer games can be played...

Obviously, they must be convicted,,, not just charged..

I just don't know why anyone would want a convicted felon in a position of power....

Just doesn't make sense to me.

That pretty much leaves out everyone, cause we've all done stupid things in our past. It's what you learn from those things that builds your character.

There weren't any term limits on the President for over 130 years or more. Washington set the standard at 2 terms saying any longer looked too much like being King. All presidents after kept with the tradition of 2 terms until FDR pushed it out to 4 terms. At that point the 22nd amendment was ratified to the current 2 terms.

That isn't to say FDR was power hungry...though he may have been. The timing was right. He was elected to his 3rd term during the depression and WWII and his 4th in the waning days of WWII. A few other President ran for a 3rd term but weren't elected for one reason or another.

The 22nd, limiting President to 2 terms wasn't in place until maybe 1953-54? It was in the early 50's.

It would not rule me out...

I think a criminal decision is much different than a bad decision.

I think if a candidate would have any sort of trouble gaining or keeping top secret security clearance, that should be grounds for not being considered as a viable candidate.

Honestly, its about as simple as that... We have people that have applied for jobs that are totally qualified but are NOT allowed to accept those jobs because of something in their background.

It's too bad, but something they did or didn't do is the reason they are declined.

I would completely agree with this.

Proof is required for these items..

The only reason the alphabet comes in that order is because everybody agrees to it.

Think about it.

Private industry varies wildly on what they expect so I don't think there is a "standard" acceptable to them. They will also bend their own rules to get the person they want if that's what they need to do. So I think starting with the private industry standard is a poor place to start.

If anything I would relax the rules even further. In theory, the way it's supposed to work is that when somebody files to run for President, the government has a vetting process for the basics, then the media is supposed to find whatever else they can find as far as finances, criminal record, moral issues, etc. They should present them, then an informed public can make the decision of how important those issues are to them.

The fact that the media is painfully biased in the way they present things and the public is far less informed, in general, than they should be doesn't mean the system wouldn't work if it was done correctly.

Plus, there is no way to create parameters around qualifications that aren't going to come across as biased. If you make financial requirements or criminal record requirements you will automatically exclude far more blacks/minorities than whites for running for President. Granted almost none of them (blacks or whites) would do it anyway, but you would have just excluded them by law from even having the possibility of doing it.

At the end of the day, you have 150 million eligible voters in the US who are supposed to weigh the information and provide an informed vote in an adult manner for the candidate that has the credentials they are looking for.. and that should be enough of a vetting process.

There are only three constitutional requirements to be president.

A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

As we've seen many voters aren't that interested in what or who a person really is.

This thread was concerning Constitutional requirements.

Ok, my answer was a rather long winded way of saying "No, I don't think we need additional constitutional requirements". If anything, I would be open to relaxing the 35 year age requirement back to 30.