This thread got me thinking: Should one of the qualifications for serving as President of the US be military service? Whether the person (I will not use gender) had spent time shoveling shit in Shreveport or shooting insurgents, it wouldn’t matter. The fact that they have already volunteered time in the armed forces would have provided them with a slightly better insight into the daily life of your average grunt. It might also make them less likely to waste them in futile pissing contests. So, should it be a requirement for POTUS?
Great Scott no! The problem is not that such experience wouldn’t be helpful. The problem is that it directly conflicts with the concept of civilian control of the military. The founding fathers were pretty clear that civilians should control the military. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the PUSA should not have been a soldier (some of them have done a good job, eh Washington?) - but it definitely should not be a requirement.
Absolutely not. It can be a good thing, but the military is designed to be subordinate to the government; having the military be the only route to the Presidency screws that up all kinds of ways.
No it should not. the POTUS is also the head of foreign affairs, so should they have to have been an ambassador? Chief executive, Should they have to have run a company? Appoints judges, should they have to have been an attorney or judge?
While many people look favorably upon candidates who have been in the military, I don’t see a strong argument for making it a constitutional requirement.
I understand about a civilian as C-in-C but I think someone who has actually served would appreciate things like poorly supplied troops or lack of interpreters. They might pause before sending troops into a situation where there are shaky reasons for entering, poorly defined goals when they are there and no exit strategy to get out.
It’s for similar reasons that I don’t think lawyers or career politicians should be POTUS. Instead I think people with real business experience, who know how to keep a company in the black, would be better suited.
And if you feed a cow cocoa beans it will give you chocolate milk. I know I’m dreaming.
It would require a constitutional admendment to change the qualifications for President. I don’t think it’s worth the effort, or necessarily even a good idea.
This is a great example about why we should not have specific requirements for the Presidency. Right NOW we have a President in office who has no legal training. And that President is butchering separation of powers and making our government inherently more dangerous. (By the way - if you lean right and take exception to my language there - try reading it this way “at the very least, this President is probing the limits of separation of powers.” You only have to read about the “unitary executive” concept to see that).
Despite that, I don’t think that requiring the President of the U.S.A. to have a law license would be the appropriate response.
When do we stop trying to customize the qualifications? Katrina was a disaster. Should the next President have to have experience in emergency management? If so, how much?
Like Dick Cheney?
Let’s see, what would be needed to switch goverment to a business-like basis:
– You are free to choose whether to use its services, including whether or not to abide by any laws it passes.
– You pay for any service you get from the government. Need a cop? Be prepared to pay him. Fire break out? Negotiate a service fee with the fire department, or pay their fixed rate. Want a trial? Hire a judge.
– Monopolies are unamerican. Let’s have several governments competing, each trying to get your business by providing better service at lower cost.
– Or are they? If ExxonMobilBPAmocoShellCitgoStandardArco decides to merge and charge $10 a gallon for gas, why should government stop them? They can pay more than you for the vote.
Yeah, good idea! :dubious:
Why? The government is not a business. They have different goals: companies are supposed to make money, and governments are supposed to run countries. A government can make money, but that’s not its purpose. Any experience spent trying to get profits out of a company will be of limited value in the Presidency.
Look, the idea that we should have a constitutional requirement that the President be veteran is ridiculous. We don’t even have a requirement that the President should be able to read and write, or tie his own shoes.
It is up to the voters to determine whether a candidate who did or did not serve in the military is fit to be president, just like it is up to the voters to determine whether an illiterate candidate is fit to be president.
You are perfectly within your rights to vote against non-veterans, and to urge others to vote against non-veterans. How a candidate behaved during military service could be a valuable insight into their character, and basing your vote on this is perfectly reasonable.
But making it a constitutional requirement makes no sense. The other qualifications, that the President be over 35 and a natural born citizen, are a reaction to the sorts of things that happened at the time the constitution was written…foreign princes given the throne of a country, child rulers under the “protection” of a regent, and so forth. While I probably wouldn’t vote for a young kid who hadn’t proved himself, or a non-citizen, I wouldn’t have a problem voting for a naturalized citizen. If it were up to me those requirements would be removed. But it isn’t up to me, it would require a constitutional amendment, and such an amendment is pretty unlikely to pass.
No, never, and the idea is undemocratic. And in my opinion, it’s unwise to focus on the President’s CinC role that way. I don’t think it’s the most important part of the job, and we shouldn’t demand stringent qualifications for it that we don’t demand for other parts.
This is so blatantly false that I don’t know whether to laugh or scream when I hear it. JFK was a veteran, LBJ was a veteran, and they take a huge amount of the blame for Vietnam. Rumsfeld is a veteran and he was a big supporter of this futile Iraq thing from day one. Powell was a general and chairman of the joint chiefs and he didn’t do anything to stop it.
While there are many pitfalls to having a President who is a career politician, the President works in politics - so it can only help to know how that world works.
Hell no.
So a kid born with a club foot (later corrected by surgery) is marked as unfit for military service. That kid can never be president. However, his best friend, a vet, can be president, even if he is a military amputee. Hmmmm.
Real business experience? You mean MBA material? Fortune 500? Are peanut farmers business people?
The more nickel and dime qualification you add to the job, the more other special interests add their pennies, quarters and dollars’ worth of qualifications as well. Where will it stop?
Are you proposing this idea because of Bush? I wonder how many former presidents would not meet your qualifications? I would think a fair number, and of those, a certain percentage probably did a bangup job as president.
[that70sshow]
Bush was in the Guard, so he’s almost a veteran 
[/that70sshow]
I suspect the OP was taking aim at either of the Clintons, or perhaps Obama.
For what it is worth, Clinton is the only President in my lifetime that was never in the military. Even Reagan was commissioned as a reserve officer at one point.
One could argue that we had a de facto rule of electing Presidents with military experience. From Truman through Bush 41, 7 presidents from WWII on had military experience. I remember when Clinton was running and it was revealed that he in essence dodged the draft, many at that time believed that he was finished. But he was elected even with that issue. So I don’t think the American people care. I think it’s an important consideration though. We can argue about Presidential powers, how much the President can effect the economy, business and so forth. But he clearly controls the military, and some expedience in that area would be helpful.
Perhaps the best reason for not doing what the OP proposes is that** “Commander in Chief” is not the President’s job**. It’s one aspect of his job, one that becomes very relevant in time of war. But only one element. Chief Executive, Summit-level negotiator of treaties, Head of State, Head of Government, Defender of the Constitution: these are all elements of what the President does. No one has proposed that he needs to have specific qualifications based on any of them – and every 20th Century president but one could have benefitted from a greater knowledge of constitutional law, IMO, to address one of them. Neither, IMO, does experience in the military translate to effectiveness as Commander in Chief. It’s much like saying that to be a good C.E.O. of General Foods, you need to know how to be a good baker or a good preparer of frozen foods.
Somewhat similarly, I’d worry that if military experience was a requirement, the President might feel that the only tool he or she had was a hammer, and every problem would appear to be a nail…
Needless to say, I do not agree that military service for the US President should be compulsory.
It could be better said that, as a result of the massive increase of the military as a result of WWII, a greatly increased percentage of the eligible pool of Presidential candidates (i.e., white males) had military service, and the results of the Truman (well, Truman was a WWI veteran)-Bush 41 elections reflect that reality. With the significant decrease in the size of the military since WWII, and particulary since the end of the Cold War, it is becoming less and less likely that presidential candidates will have had military service.
Anyway, I’d say that your suggestion pretty much contravenes the intent of the FFs. They distrusted standing armies, and until WWII the US has usually have a tiny army relative to its size. Thus, there was a tiny pool of potential Presidents, under your plan.
Sua
Throughout my adult life, I’ve hated the notion that government could be run “like a business,” but I never knew why. Now I know.
Of course, there are some “government” services (education being the one I can think of right now) that do have to be competitive. Parents nowadays can move their kids in and out of schools, public and private, however they please and can afford. College is even more competetive. But I still don’t think universities should be bottom-line based.
Sorry for the slight hijack, but thanks to **Polycarp ** for the insight.
As to the OP, I don’t think it would be right to make military service a constitutional requirement for the presidency; on the other hand, given a choice between a vet and non-vet, I’ll vote for the veteran regardless of party. I’ve been a registered Democrat all my adult life, but I voted for GHW Bush over Clinton the first time and Bob Dole over Clinton the second time. When it came to Gore-Bush in 2000, I went with Gore because I consider his military journalism stint in Vietnam actual military service (just like mine in Germany a few years later, in fact) but Dubya’s Air Force Reserve was an obvious Vietnam-aversion ploy.
In 2008, I’ll probably vote for McCain, unless Wes Clark pulls off the upset of the all time and ends up on the Democratic ticket.
Mind if I ask why? And I’m asking this civilly - I’m just baffled by voting for someone who holds completely opposite beliefs and political viewpoints as you do, simply because of a shared experience.
Please expound on this.
I always figured the big qualification for being President is that you have to get enough votes. Everything else if minor details.
If you want to base your vote on a candidate’s service record, that’s fine - but there’s no reason everyone has to be forced to make the same decision.