Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been talk of this for many years, going back to the Clinton era. The best possible preparation for the Presidency is being a military officer, as it makes a potential POTUS aware of what the serviceman and servicewoman have to go through. It gives them leadership experience and awareness of the wider world. Fewer veterans than ever in our national politics means that veterans' issues get ignored, and the lives of servicepeople become more abstract.
This is why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment requiring service in order to hold the nation's highest office, with the immediate removal of a current holder of the office if he has not served. (in that case the Presidency would go to whoever was next in the line of succession who had actually served.) National Guard, Coast Guard, and Reserves service would be considered service as well as service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. This would raise the quality of the men - and potentially women - who would hold the office.
There has been talk of this for many years, going back to the Clinton era. The best possible preparation for the Presidency is being a military officer, as it makes a potential POTUS aware of what the serviceman and servicewoman have to go through. It gives them leadership experience and awareness of the wider world. Fewer veterans than ever in our national politics means that veterans' issues get ignored, and the lives of servicepeople become more abstract.
This is why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment requiring service in order to hold the nation's highest office, with the immediate removal of a current holder of the office if he has not served. (in that case the Presidency would go to whoever was next in the line of succession who had actually served.) National Guard, Coast Guard, and Reserves service would be considered service as well as service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. This would raise the quality of the men - and potentially women - who would hold the office.
Since we're on the subject of the Constitution, perhaps you should look up the definition of Ex Post Facto--as in..No Ex Post Facto laws may be enacted?
I would rather make service of some kind mandatory for the exercise of franchise. Let those who know the cost of war..vote on whether to engage in it.
There has been talk of this for many years, going back to the Clinton era. The best possible preparation for the Presidency is being a military officer, as it makes a potential POTUS aware of what the serviceman and servicewoman have to go through. It gives them leadership experience and awareness of the wider world. Fewer veterans than ever in our national politics means that veterans' issues get ignored, and the lives of servicepeople become more abstract.
This is why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment requiring service in order to hold the nation's highest office, with the immediate removal of a current holder of the office if he has not served. (in that case the Presidency would go to whoever was next in the line of succession who had actually served.) National Guard, Coast Guard, and Reserves service would be considered service as well as service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. This would raise the quality of the men - and potentially women - who would hold the office.
Out of curiosity, who would you consider to be the five most effective Presidents in U.S. History?
I want to up the ante. ANY Congress member who votes in favor of war must immediately find a close male relative to frontline service, son, father, cousin, nephew, etc. If no volunteers or none can be made, the Congress member must immediately leave Congress and join the services in a frontline position.
Oh wait we don't vote on wars anymore. I forgot. Go back to left vs right debates and ignore the fact that we been going to war illegally for decades since we all are so smart.
At least during Monarchies and Empires, it was frowned upon when a young male leader did not lead from the FRONT, literally from the front. Now we have rich old men paying rich old men in politics to rage war.
The funny thing is, Ronald Reagan never served either. He and Nancy made some b-movies about the war. No real bullets or anything though!
As soon as Clinton got in, Limbaugh and the baby Limbaughs of the right-wing media started talking of military service requirements for POTUS.
Romney declared there should be an amendment to require the POTUS to have a "business" background. Romney had one, Obama didn't.
Neither did Reagan. George Bush, pere, did. George Bush, fils, had one....of course, his was one of abject failure.
Republicans hold Reagan aloft as the ubermensch, hence the comparisons w/ other presidents.
Emotions, compulsions, and illogical thought seem to be the chief drivers of right-wing rhetoric. That's funny because the Right loves to portray liberals and lefties as driven by emotion. And yet, look at characters such as Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. How do THEY behave? Right. Do you see Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow screaming and crying and carrying on on their shows? Nope.
Since we're on the subject of the Constitution, perhaps you should look up the definition of Ex Post Facto--as in..No Ex Post Facto laws may be enacted?
I would rather make service of some kind mandatory for the exercise of franchise. Let those who know the cost of war..vote on whether to engage in it.
OK, then, so then Trump - if this passed while he was president - would be able to finish his term but would be banned from serving another term. Fine with me.
OK, then, so then Trump - if this passed while he was president - would be able to finish his term but would be banned from serving another term. Fine with me.
Cool..start the process. I wonder though...do you really think..that all those men..and women..who have never served, who sit in Congress..would vote for such a bill? Do you think that all those who have never served in the States..will vote for such an amendment?
Out of curiosity, who would you consider to be the five most effective Presidents in U.S. History?
I disagree with the original poster.
However, perhaps you could count civilian-military offices like FDR's Secretary of Navy as a position?
1. Lincoln - served
2. Washington - served
3. FDR - no, but civilian-navy office
4. Teddy - served
5. Eisenhower - served
6. Truman - served
7. Reagan - served
That's not going to work. Rich people with political ambitions would get themselves a REMF job in a friendly governor's national guard unit, pose for some photo-oppy campaign pictures and owe favors once elected. I'll gladly grant that a line officer will have some useful, proven, leadership experience - but that's not who we'd get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
