[QUOTE=Nava]
Lawyers: uhm, are you counting “judge” as being “office”? This last point makes me think you need to rethink your definitions.
[/QUOTE]
I covered that by asking if different restrictions hould apply at different levels. And I certainly don’t want a general as Minister of Defence; a retired general, maybe.
The factor with clergy is not that they answer to a higher power but that they could tell their congregation that they must vote for them as a religous duty,taken to its extremes you get Iran.
Serving prisoners running for office?you’ll always have the risk that once in office their legislation will be motivated by getting them and their mates out of the pokey.
Serving military,particulary officers running for office you’ll always have the risk that the voting of their men could be influenced ie." if I’m not elected then life is going to be hell around here"
Also can you imagine a serving general elected as P.O.T.U.S. who on losing an election decides that his political missions importance is too important to be curtailed and even democratic concerns must be overruled to achieve this…
Actually, two very competent Secretaries of State were Generals: George C. Marshall and Colin Powell (you may question Powell’s effectiveness, given the Bush foreign policy, but not, I think, his basic competency.). Neither on active duty, of course, but at their rank you do not get retired, you simply end up inactive until the President wants you.
A question for American Dopers generally, not just Missourians: of Sens. Ashcroft and Danforth, which do you feel better served Missouri and America in his Senate tenure? Why did you choose him?
Finally, my own answer to the OP: Yes, “some groups” should be made ineligible for public office and disenfranchised. The one group who I feel should have this done to them is the people who call publicly for making others ineligible and disenfranchising them. It’s only karmic justice.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
A legislature with no lawyers in it would be incompetent. Think about it.
[/QUOTE]
Not so. The Georgia legislature has an office of legislative services that, among other things, has a staff of lawyers that vets proposed legislation for legality for legislators, before they submit it. I don’t know that legislators are REQUIRED to take advantage of this service, I do know that they routinely do so.
Also, if you want to know about the legality of a proposed bill, all you have to do is send a copy to proponents and opponents of the bill. They’ll tell you about any little legal problems, in fact, some of them will make stuff up.
There is all sorts of help available to any legislator who has questions about proposing a law. There’s no excuse for laws that are blatantly illegal or that don’t make any sense whatever. We still get them, of course, but it’s generally willful stupidity, not actual ignorance.
I think any group which proposes to end elections should be banned from office. This actually happened in Algeria. There was a strong Islamist party which threatened to gain control of the legislature via elections in 1992. They planned to impose Sharia law, which in their view meant rule by mullahs and no elections.
This naturally caused great consternation among the other political factions, who were faced with perpetual loss of any hope of gaining political power, and it alarmed governments worldwide. And unfortunately for the Islamists, these minotirites included people who actually did hold power in the government. As a result, the military prevented the Islamists from obtaining power. Since then, the Islamist party has been outlawed, and has resorted to the favorite tactic of foiled Islamists, terrorism, to make their points. A very unhappy situation.
I’d resolve it in the future through a simple proposition – anybody who isn’t willing to hold free and fair elections and relinquish power if voted out, should not be allowed to attain power via free and fair elections.
This would invalidate a LOT of putatively democratic governments worldwide. I’m OK with that.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Actually, two very competent Secretaries of State were Generals: George C. Marshall and Colin Powell (you may question Powell’s effectiveness, given the Bush foreign policy, but not, I think, his basic competency.). Neither on active duty, of course, but at their rank you do not get retired, you simply end up inactive until the President wants you.
Finally, my own answer to the OP: Yes, “some groups” should be made ineligible for public office and disenfranchised. The one group who I feel should have this done to them is the people who call publicly for making others ineligible and disenfranchising them. It’s only karmic justice.
[/QUOTE]
Logically then you’d disenfranchise yourself for calling for any members of groups calling for the disenfranmchisment of groups to be disenfranchised?(I’m glad I didn’t have to say that aloud)
Also then you’re in favour of ALL groups having the vote ,including the insane ,children,foreign terrorist sleeper cells,the diplomatic staff of foreign countries and illegal immigrants?
In my previous I wasn’t saying that that the groups I discussed SHOULDN’T have the vote/right to stand for office but was pointing out the inherent dangers associated with them, although in my country convicts are not allowed to stand for office and I agree with it.
Also in England the apathy branch of religion is in the ascendant so clergy trying to manipulate their congregations would not be a problem HERE(I think any priest trying to would receive a very short answer,the second word of which would be OFF) but in other countries where culturally religion is more central to peoples lives it could be.
Finally my point about senior military and high office was that if they are ACTIVELY pursuing a military career while in political office is that they have troops to call on in a potential coup situation,officers on the reserve list dont .
One of my main vices ,apart from smoking opium ,being a regular client of prostitutes and having unnatural relations with sheep is playing “devils advocate”
If I see flaws in an argument I feel obliged to point them out even if it goes against my own personal stance on the subject.