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.
Absolutely. If the people who support the military have to have background checks (i.e. DOD civilians), then why shouldn't the Commander in Chief? It should work the same for the head as for the foundation.
I strongly disagree, the commander in chief is elected by the public.
I believe BG checks should be done away with for most jobs anyway, I understand why they are needed for bank employees, child care, etc, but to work in a distribution center, factory, gas station..CMON, thats going a little overboard imo. working conditions were actually safer in the days before most jobs did BG checks too, so that is interesting in itself.
I think all of the candidates considering a run for any political office anywhere should have a back ground check. Whenever we apply for a job a background check is done. Our employers want to know who they're hiring. Public officials work for us, and as their employer we deserve to know everything about them. I think it's time for super pack money to stop buying our elected officials as well. We have a system that invites corruption. Knowing who's on the take is one step closer to draining the swamp. So is knowing about all of those skeletons in their closets.
Placing additional qualifications at the party level would be the ruin of that party. Virtue checking only has so much legal standing.
As I said, It would be Unconstitutional to do so, unless the Constitution is amended to add the additional qualification requirement. The Constitution cannot be altered by legislation. Or do you think otherwise?
I do not see how the requirement of the party could be unconstitutional. The person running then has the option of going independent.
In other words a person must relinquish all their god given rights, just to have a privilege to beg for your vote?
You already want Trump to give up his first Amendment, why not the 2nd, 4th and 5th... Who cares, right?
A person needs to apply for the job, we require a solid back ground. He refused to give his entire back ground. That is why today we have a POTUS who may be being black mailed by Putin.
I do not see how the requirement of the party could be unconstitutional. The person running then has the option of going independent.
As I said before, just like Trump did. As Conservative as I am, I can register as a Democrat tomorrow and place my name on the ballot. The party just runs funding.
As liberal as Trump was, He registered as a Republican. The RNC gave him no funding until the very end and it was not much in comparison to past Presidents but by a tiny fraction.
Trump did it his way without being influenced by the money given(bought off)
We are one of the world's oldest democracies (Haiti maybe beat us out?) where the Constitution mandated a Presidential system. Here, the president is voted for directly by the people. In contrast, in a Parliamentarian system the party head becomes prime minister.
Not advocating for one compared to the other but both have their drawbacks - depending how history plays out. But arguably in a Parliamentarian system you DO end up with a well-vetted chief executive from the time spent working his/her way up the ranks.
What is kind of interesting is that MOST of the world democracies ended choosing a Parliamentarian system. About the only other Presidential systems are in Latin America and Central Asia.
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.