Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Father Kit Cool Gun Garth

Time for an Amendment?

Recommended Posts

With the election closing in on us soon, thoughts about the qualifications to be eligible for the position has come to mind again, at least for me.

You see, the Constitution states:

 

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

 

I believe it should be amended to include some or all of the suggestions below:

  • No older than 70 years of age;
  • Must provide a physicians report of mental capacity and physical health status and pass both;
  • Served in the military;
  • Attended a College or University and received a degree;
  • Held a professional job as a career;
  • Served in a governing position such as City Council, Mayor, Governor, etc.;
  • Member of the Senate, Congress, Court System, etc.

 

I'm sure you can come up with many more, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the issue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts...

 

  • No older than 70 years of age;  No. I know many in their 70s who are mentally fit. Let the voters decide. 
  • Must provide a physicians report of mental capacity and physical health status and pass both;  See note above. 
  • Served in the military;  No. There are many good people who haven’t served. Military service is only part of what makes a good leader. 
  • Attended a College or University and received a degree;  No. There are small business owners, skilled tradesmen, and others without a degree who would be better than many with a sheepskin. 
  • Held a professional job as a career;  Too vague. What does this mean?
  • Served in a governing position such as City Council, Mayor, Governor, etc.;  This is part of what I look for, but is not a prerequisite. 
  • Member of the Senate, Congress, Court System, etc.  No. Randy Boyd nearly became governor of TN, and would have been great. Never served in the legislature. 
     

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mostly with Charlie on this. Never get passed by the states. I'd much rather see term limits on Congress.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

My thoughts: no change whatever.

 

I used to be of the same thought process, but now I am strongly in favor of term limits, just like Big Sage. The founders never envisioned Congress being a career, and a lucrative one at that. They considered it a duty that responsible men would take time out of their lives to fulfill, out of the necessity of the Republic. When I see people sitting in Congress in excess of thirty years, and getting a very large pension out of my taxes at the end, when it is very clear they listen more to lobbyists than their constituents, there needs to be a change in that regard. I forget where I read it, but an article I saw recently noted that the occupation of the majority of Senators and Representatives was "civil servant," meaning they had no other career prior to being elected. Rand Paul, for example, was listed as a physician instead.

Edited by DocWard
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life said:

I'm mostly with Charlie on this. Never get passed by the states. I'd much rather see term limits on Congress.

Me too.

 

As for a college degree?  I have one, my parents both did...Dad was a professor...and my sister did. too.  Traveling in circles with a lot of people with Masters, and Doctorates who couldn't pee a hole in a snow bank.  

 

I've also known a lot of people who I would consider Presidential material who never even completed high school.

 

I'd prefer a veteran, but being one isn't a deal breaker or maker.

 

As for serving in a lesser public office, that's like serving as an apprentice to what we have too much of now.

 

Sorry Garth, but I have to disagree with most of your suggestion...and I don't ususally disagree with you on anything.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

There is a good argument to be made for military service.

If someone is going to send troops in harms way experience is good.

Ive thought a full term as govenor of a state would give a record

that all voters could examine. But that is so limiting.

I would go along with changing 35 to 45 or even 50.

INteresting idea.

Best

CR

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Leave the Presidency alone.

 

I think a lot of our problems  could be solved by turning off the HVAC units in the House of  Representatives and the Senate and  all offices that support Congress.

 

Congress  could  be in session in the early Spring and late Fall. That's it.

 

Also, any money made outside  of their salaries and allotments should be confiscated and put into the general fund. 

 

Term Limit them all to 2  terms and that they be forbidden to consult or work in any Federal capacity.

Edited by Pat Riot, SASS #13748
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see term limits on Senators! No reason why the likes of some of these whackos should be in there for 40+ years!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the purpose of the my Post was to create dialogue regarding the requirements to become eligible for one of the highest and most powerful positions in the United States.

Look at the resumes that are required to obtain professional positions, to get into Universities, etc.

Look at the tests that must be passed to obtain a driver's license, a real estate license, etc.

Appears that having knowledge about the task you about to undertake requires it.

But for becoming a President, age, natural born citizen and lived here for 14 years?

The discussion is around the discrepancy between these obtainable positions.

Yes we have had military experience (Eisenhower, Kennedy, et.al) and Senators (Obama), Governors (Carter), etc. yet we also have had actors (Reagan) and TV Personalities (Trump) along with others.

Seems like the qualifications for President are pretty loose IMHO.

Not trying to make light of the subject, but something is missing here.

As a side note: I'm all for term limits for Senators and Congressmen; however, this is about the qualifications for President.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really see no reason to change qualifications of the President.

 

I would like to see some things about the Presidency change, like; restrictions on the use of Executive Orders and getting ones spouse involved in crap they have no business being involved in, but as for  qualifications I am good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

Look at the resumes that are required to obtain professional positions, to get into Universities, etc

Yea and look at the whackos we get as teachers in these colleges! Resumes mean nothing!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

With the election closing in on us soon, thoughts about the qualifications to be eligible for the position has come to mind again, at least for me.

You see, the Constitution states:

 

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

 

I believe it should be amended to include some or all of the suggestions below:

  • No older than 70 years of age;
  • Must provide a physicians report of mental capacity and physical health status and pass both;
  • Served in the military;
  • Attended a College or University and received a degree;
  • Held a professional job as a career;
  • Served in a governing position such as City Council, Mayor, Governor, etc.;
  • Member of the Senate, Congress, Court System, etc.

 

I'm sure you can come up with many more, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the issue.

 

 

 

 

This may just be the most elitist,  most exclusionary, most pompous idea that I have seen in years!!

 

In the first place, your “institutions of higher learning” are the breeding ground for liberal blindness and socialist ideas, so we can immediately discard that as a qualifier.

 

Service in the military, as much as I respect and support it, only proves that one can follow orders or that one can climb the military ladder. True leaders will rise through any rank, military or otherwise. A leader will lead, no matter what or who he’s called to lead.

 

A professional career??  I worked in the automotive repair industry for many years!!  I am a retired professional with the educational equivalent of a doctorate in my field!!  I’ve known more than a few in my line of work who would be better, more qualified, far more sensible chief executives than several presidents that come to mind.  Would you exclude these?

 

 I’m acquainted with more than one octogenarian who is more fit and more sound minded than more than one recent candidate that would meet your criteria!

 

Finally, a career as a politician or as a member of the court system may be as much or more of a DISQUALIFYER as it might be an asset!  More of our politicians, (most, in my opinion) are unfit to hold the office they occupy, much less that of chief executive!! 

 

With a few notable exceptions, our process has served well. We should use extraordinary care and caution in changing it!!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

I guess the purpose of the my Post was to create dialogue regarding the requirements to become eligible for one of the highest and most powerful positions in the United States.

Look at the resumes that are required to obtain professional positions, to get into Universities, etc.

Look at the tests that must be passed to obtain a driver's license, a real estate license, etc.

Appears that having knowledge about the task you about to undertake requires it.

But for becoming a President, age, natural born citizen and lived here for 14 years?

The discussion is around the discrepancy between these obtainable positions.

Yes we have had military experience (Eisenhower, Kennedy, et.al) and Senators (Obama), Governors (Carter), etc. yet we also have had actors (Reagan) and TV Personalities (Trump) along with others.

Seems like the qualifications for President are pretty loose IMHO.

Not trying to make light of the subject, but something is missing here.

As a side note: I'm all for term limits for Senators and Congressmen; however, this is about the qualifications for President.

 

 

Ronald Wilson Reagan was also a governor.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shot a SASS match in the Baptist Category. 
 

I can think of three that were at least Baptists.   Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. 
 

hmmm....

 

on second thought...maybe not. 
 

No, certainty NOT!

 

Oh, please. Just disregard all last transmissions!!!

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

 

 

I think a lot of our problems  could be solved by turning off the HVAC units in the House of  Representatives and the Senate and  all offices that support Congress.

 

Congress  could  be in session in the early Spring and late Fall. 


Someone said a while back that one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was when they installed air conditioning in Congress.  No one could survive the Summer heat and humidity there otherwise so they were only in session tormenting us for part of the year. 
 

As far as amending the Constitution, with the country as divided as it is now I don’t see any possibility of any amendments passing, which is probably a good thing. 
 

Seamus

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Seamus McGillicuddy said:

As far as amending the Constitution, with the country as divided as it is now I don’t see any possibility of any amendments passing, which is probably a good thing  


Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

 I would prefer to have the Constitution implemented as it was originally written; Senate selected by state governments, Vice- President is the candidate who got the second most votes, rather than someone chosen by the Presidential candidate.  It would keep the Stacy Abrams/Kamala Harris/ Elizabeth Warren folks from possibly becoming the President.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start with Congressional and Senatorial term limits. Get that done.

 

And everything that Blackwater said.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Congress already has term limits. They are called elections.

 

The, 'throw the bums out,' movement has been around for decades. The problem is that most people want someone else's bum thrown out, but are fine with sending

their own bum back.

 

Establish  term limits, and the voters who send the people you don't like to congress will just send someone else you don't like.

 

ETA: Regarding the idea of changing qualifications for president -- no. There isn't much of a way to craft guidelines to cull the scrubs that can't be side-stepped or twisted. The only real solution is educated voters. Which is kind of depressing, when you think about it.

Edited by Ozark Huckleberry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be worried over a military requirement for what in a democratic republic is supposed to be a civilian government. The experience can be beneficial, but we should never be at a point like the Praetorian Guard of Rome choosing the emperor.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the Presidency alone.

 

Your suggestions don't fly with me. 

 

I know people with PHD's that shouldn't be trusted in public unsupervised. 

 

Career politicians aren't what I consider to be the 1st choice for any position of power. 

 

Mandatory military service for the President sounds like a great way to lead to some sort of banana republic junta system coming into power.  Next thing you know, the President will have a cool uniform to wear that's covered in medals from collarbone to belt line, too.

 

Put term limits on the House and do away with the popular vote for the Senate by going back to appointment by the State legislatures. 

 

The Senate was NEVER intended to be another popularity contest.  It was intended to give the States a voice at the Federal legislative level.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

No.

 

 I would prefer to have the Constitution implemented as it was originally written; Senate selected by state governments, Vice- President is the candidate who got the second most votes, rather than someone chosen by the Presidential candidate.  It would keep the Stacy Abrams/Kamala Harris/ Elizabeth Warren folks from possibly becoming the President.

 

I agree regarding Senators. Remember though, it was pretty much those same founding fathers that wrote the Constitution who amended it after seeing problems with it. I do, however, wonder what it would be like if the President and VP were not allowed to run as a "ticket," creating the possibility that one party could have the President win, and another the Vice President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

I agree regarding Senators. Remember though, it was pretty much those same founding fathers that wrote the Constitution who amended it after seeing problems with it. I do, however, wonder what it would be like if the President and VP were not allowed to run as a "ticket," creating the possibility that one party could have the President win, and another the Vice President.

That would be interesting. In case of the death of the Pres, the opposing party would take over the leadership.

Very similar to what we see in parliamentary countries where a Vote of No Confidence sweeps out the old government, without a popular vote from the people. I don’t like that system.

Of course the VP has very little true authority as long as the main man remains upright.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Utah Bob #35998 said:

That would be interesting. In case of the death of the Pres, the opposing party would take over the leadership.

Very similar to what we see in parliamentary countries where a Vote of No Confidence sweeps out the old government, without a popular vote from the people. I don’t like that system.

Of course the VP has very little true authority as long as the main man remains upright.

 

I'm not saying I advocate for it, but it might be fodder for a little thoughtful debate among some. for example, would it cause the parties to choose more centrist candidates, given the fact that there would be a slightly increased likelihood of "the other guy" taking over?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

.... creating the possibility that one party could have the President win, and another the Vice President.

Why do you think that the VP slot is so high in prestige and so low on actual power?

 

Look at the responsibilities of the office.  It kept the 2nd most popular candidate handy in case something happened to the winner but didn't give them the opportunity to sabotage the winner's administration.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VP is still president of the Senate, with the possibility of casting the deciding vote on legislation that may be tied in a 50-50 vote.  It has rarely happened, but the VP's duties can be more important that just the "person in waiting".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

I agree regarding Senators. Remember though, it was pretty much those same founding fathers that wrote the Constitution who amended it after seeing problems with it. I do, however, wonder what it would be like if the President and VP were not allowed to run as a "ticket," creating the possibility that one party could have the President win, and another the Vice President.

 

This happened in 1864, with the Republican Abraham Lincoln winning the presidency, and Andrew Johnson, Democrat, winning the VP.

Edited by Marshal Hangtree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted a long reply and replacing it with this.  Your proposal is ridiculous, unworkable and would simply be another way for politicians to manipulate the system.  If you are bored, why don't you go bake some cookies or something

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marshal Hangtree said:

 

This happened in 1860, with the Republican Abraham Lincoln winning the presidency, and Andrew Johnson, Democrat, winning the VP.

 

I'll blame the lack of coffee this early, but somehow that had slipped my mind that Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson a Democrat. Technically, though, if memory serves me correctly, they ran as a ticket under the Union or National Union party.

A quick check says National Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DocWard said:

 

I'll blame the lack of coffee this early, but somehow that had slipped my mind that Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson a Democrat. Technically, though, if memory serves me correctly, they ran as a ticket under the Union or National Union party.

A quick check says National Union.

 

You are correct, Doc.  I edited my above post to show the election of 1864 when Lincoln chose Johnson as a running mate, not 1860.  The "National Union" party was a spin off of the Republican party that year, encompassing anti-slavery Democrats and Republicans, versus the new "progressive Republicans" that wanted to end the war at virtually any cost or compromise with the South.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered lately if the 22nd Amendment should be expanded to include spouses. In 1947, when it was passed, it was ridiculous to think a woman would ever be President, but today we know it is an eventual inevitability. Whoever Joe Biden picks as a running mate will be the President in short order if he's elected. If he were to choose Michelle Obama, Barack will effectively be the President again for another four years... or eight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be unfortunate , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.