Military service requirement for US Presidency

[nerdgirl 0]

As has been suggested in another thread, do you think the US Constitution should be amended creating a new requirement for the President that a candidate must have active duty military service (US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, or US Marine Corps)?

Should the US Coast Guard be included? Technically they are a branch of the military, although in non-war situations, the USCG is under DHS rather than DoD.

What about the other two uniformed services? The US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps

Does it matter if the candidate was a Medal of Honor recipient or did acquisitions in Hawaii?

My suspicion is that there will be a lot of folks reading this who agree with the proposed requirement notionally.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[matthewcline 0]

I do not think it is needed as a requirement.
But on the other hand should not be frowned upon.

I usually give a +1 to the candidate who served before the candidate who did not.

but it still comes down to the whole package for me, not just one part.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[riddler 0]

Requiring military service would be less relevant than requiring a law degree for the POTUS, and would probably have even less of an influence. Having a law degree didn't stop Nixon from breaking the law at just about every opportunity; Requiring service wouldn't stop the POTUS from abusing the military.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[shropshire 0]

Nope.. being ex-military does not qualify one to open-minded leadership. If anything it could make them more dictatorial.

What is required is an intelligent, open-minded HONEST person.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Requiring military service would be less relevant than requiring a law degree for the POTUS, and would probably have even less of an influence. Having a law degree didn't stop Nixon from breaking the law at just about every opportunity; Requiring service wouldn't stop the POTUS from abusing the military.

I want someone there with the humility to KNOW what discipline, and honor and duty really mean.
I want them to KNOW what it means to send our sons and daughers into harms way.
I want someone there who will know that THOUSANDS more will die there than just the daily casualty figures, from broken bodies to broken minds to broken souls.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What is required is an intelligent, open-minded HONEST person.

Dude - we're talking about POLITICIANS, here...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

Quote

I want someone there with the humility to KNOW what discipline, and honor and duty really mean.
I want them to KNOW what it means to send our sons and daughers into harms way.
I want someone there who will know that THOUSANDS more will die there than just the daily casualty figures, from broken bodies to broken minds to broken souls.

As nice as those qualities are they don't neccesarily make for a good leader. Sometimes you need someone a little bit detached to be able to make decisions without distraction.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

What is required is an intelligent, open-minded HONEST person.

Dude - we're talking about POLITICIANS, here...

Yeap, you're right Mike - my mistake.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As nice as those qualities are they don't neccesarily make for a good leader. Sometimes you need someone a little bit detached to be able to make decisions without distraction.

Instead we got someone who is completely detached.. and does not give a shit.

Amend that to read.. either he or anyone else in his Administration... they are all like minded in serving themselves.. never having served anything else.

[Scoop 0]

I think there is a happy medium to be found somewhere. The trouble with politics in general is from high school to the highest level, these people never really get a grasp of real life. It's certainly true over here anyway. Privately educated posh boys who make their way through life but really don't have a clue what "normal" life is for the people they represent.

[tbrown 26]

The founding fathers kept the list of qualifications short for a reason. Age 35, citizen from birth, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Period.

If military service was required, Adams, Jefferson, and FDR would all have been ineligible, and that's just a very short list. Obama was clearly the electoral choice over an opponent who served in the Vietnam War, I think that should settle the question right there.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[vortexring 0]

Quote

I think there is a happy medium to be found somewhere. The trouble with politics in general is from high school to the highest level, these people never really get a grasp of real life. It's certainly true over here anyway. Privately educated posh boys who make their way through life but really don't have a clue what "normal" life is for the people they represent.

?

What's normal life then?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think there is a happy medium to be found somewhere. The trouble with politics in general is from high school to the highest level, these people never really get a grasp of real life. It's certainly true over here anyway. Privately educated posh boys who make their way through life but really don't have a clue what "normal" life is for the people they represent.

?

What's normal life then?

Not Caroline Kennedy.

[fossg 0]

I do not think that military service should be a requirement. When a canidate is selected the total experience that the person would bring to the job should be examined. I would not vote for anyone based soley on millitary affiliation.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The founding fathers kept the list of qualifications short for a reason. Age 35, citizen from birth, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Period.

How are felons excluded then?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

The founding fathers kept the list of qualifications short for a reason. Age 35, citizen from birth, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Period.

How are felons excluded then?

Off the top of my head (such as it is), I don't think they are. Ironically, though, in many states they'd be unable to vote for themselves.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The founding fathers kept the list of qualifications short for a reason. Age 35, citizen from birth, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Period.

How are felons excluded then?

Off the top of my head (such as it is), I don't think they are. Ironically, though, in many states they'd be unable to vote for themselves.

Are the rules to get yourself on the ballot not controlled by the states?

[lawrocket 3]

No. Absolutely not. I was in the Army and it did very little for me in terms of preparing me for being POTUS. Sure, it gave me an understanding of troop issues and the like, but for the very large majority they will not be involved in strategic discussions. Smaller units are involved in tactics, which is entirely different.

A POTUS shouldn't care about tactics. A POTUS sets policies. The Joint Chiefs are there to implement those policy directives and to advise the POTUS.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

A POTUS shouldn't care about tactics. A POTUS sets policies. The Joint Chiefs are there to implement those policy directives and to advise the POTUS.

The current POTUS felt he was better qualified to make the decisions than his Generals... and those that did not agree were sacked until he and Cheney found the right yes men to tell them what they wanted to hear. Interesting how the war has actually gone based on what the generals warned of.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

No. Absolutely not. I was in the Army and it did very little for me in terms of preparing me for being POTUS. Sure, it gave me an understanding of troop issues and the like, but for the very large majority they will not be involved in strategic discussions. Smaller units are involved in tactics, which is entirely different.

A POTUS shouldn't care about tactics. A POTUS sets policies. The Joint Chiefs are there to implement those policy directives and to advise the POTUS.

I voted no, but in regards to your post, I think it has more to do with leadership training and the ability to think quickly and calmly under pressure.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The current POTUS felt he was better qualified to make the decisions than his Generals... and those that did not agree were sacked

Isn't it fair to say that Nixon and LBJ felt they were better qualified as well? And you have to think Ike still believed in himself.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Isn't it fair to say that Nixon and LBJ felt they were better qualified as well? And you have to think Ike still believed in himself.

I would think that a former staff officer would be willing to take a little more input from the professionals.. that a former Lt or a Corporal.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The founding fathers kept the list of qualifications short for a reason. Age 35, citizen from birth, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Period.

How are felons excluded then?

Off the top of my head (such as it is), I don't think they are. Ironically, though, in many states they'd be unable to vote for themselves.

Are the rules to get yourself on the ballot not controlled by the states?

Only in terms of procedure, not in terms of substantive qualifications for the office itself. President and VP are Federal offices, and thus the ONLY substantive qualifications for those offices are those specified in the US Constitution. If a state were to attempt to effectively add further qualifications for the office of President or VP through the use of its ballot-procedure laws, I'd think that portion of its laws would be unconstitutional.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If a state were to attempt to effectively add further qualifications for the office of President or VP through the use of its ballot-procedure laws, I'd think that portion of its laws would be unconstitutional.

I wonder how many do just that. I have always questioned the no voting for felons laws validity, but I really don't understand the play between the US constitution and the state legislatures very well.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

No. Absolutely not. I was in the Army and it did very little for me in terms of preparing me for being POTUS. Sure, it gave me an understanding of troop issues and the like, but for the very large majority they will not be involved in strategic discussions. Smaller units are involved in tactics, which is entirely different.

A POTUS shouldn't care about tactics. A POTUS sets policies. The Joint Chiefs are there to implement those policy directives and to advise the POTUS.

I voted no, but in regards to your post, I think it has more to do with leadership training and the ability to think quickly and calmly under pressure.

Why did a picture of Bush sitting in a classroom immediatly after being told of the attacks on 911 attacks just pop into my head?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.