There are exams for nearly every other government position. Why not one for the most important of all? I’m thinking a test about The workings of government, current international issues, basic knowledge of economics (missing in nearly every candidate unfortunately). Could congress create such a test and implement it or is it fundamentally unconstitutional?
Edit - whoops meant to put this in great debates. Sorry mods.
It would take a constitutional amendment to add the requirement to being 35 and a natural-born citizen.
Not for any elected government position, no (or an appointed one, AFAIK).
I am not sure if it would be unconstitutional to institute such a test for any elected position, up to and including President. The Constitution lists its qualifiers for President, but I don’t see how the wording there precludes tightening them. Relaxing those qualifiers would take amending the Constitution, though.
Each of us would like to be able to vet potential heads of state. And each of us would have different criteria. Who gets to write the questions? Who gets to grade the answers?
I think the campaign and the debates gave everybody plenty of time to see which candidates knew about the constitution, the economy and world affairs. Then people voted and showed the world how much that mattered to them.
I’ll refer you to this thread from 2013, or this one from 2002, both discussing the related issue of whether voters are competent enough to vote.
Have to? No. Able to? Yes.
I’d think a senate committee could easily put together a non-partisan test of the constitution, civics, and world affairs. Make it multiple choice. Unfortunately I don’t think the debates highlighted the extent of Trump’s ignorance at all. I would guess he couldn’t point to Iran on a map, let alone list 2 of the provisions of the Iran deal. I’d bet he has no idea what NAFTA really says. With correct questioning, his astounding ignorance could easily have been laid bare.
Moderator Action
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
Because there are exams for nearly every other government position. If you’re at the top, you have specialist civil servants to know and find things out for you and brief you appropriately. The more important things are character and judgement in handling the people you have to meet, and in devising and presenting arguments for what you want to achieve.
We quite often get this over here, where some interviewer thinks it’s clever to try and catch out a minister for this or that by testing them on random facts in their area (especially if they’re new to it) - famously once, a minister for sports who was quizzed on who was the current champion of this and the statistics of that. What sunk him, in my view, wasn’t the gaps in his knowledge, it was not having the nous to say “I think you’re mistaking my job for yours”.
If Congress tried to impose a test I think it would be unconstitutional. The people already impose it to the extent they wish to with their votes.
I could have sworn we just did this topic a few months ago, but I couldn’t turn up anything in the Search function. Anyone with a better memory than me?
Every President has done an oral form of such a test in the form of debates, speeches, etc. People still voted for him despite of, or because of, his answers.
If you’re looking for a specific test, fuck no, particularly for the reasons of post #4.
One has to know something of the Constitution to blatantly defy it …
It would be pointless. The winner of the election would just have to cram for it before the inauguration day, It wouldn’t be any harder than the citizenship test, unless it was filled with a lot of irrelevant details. Like “How many people in Will County Illinois voted for Chester A. Arthur?” Or “What was the date of the coronation of King Boris II of Bulgaria?”
The other problem would, of course, be the wording of the constitutional amendment describing he scope of the test in such a way that would remain germane over decades or even centuries. What body would have the authority over the inclusion of questions, and how and by whom and how often would members of that body be chosen? All questions that would have to be answered by the candidate would need to be in conformity with exactly what is described in the constitutional amendment. What could possibly go wrong?
How could you test for such knowledge? I suppose a presidential debate could be set up in such a way that it tests the candidates’ knowledge of basic civics and world affairs, but it would then be up to the voters to “enforce” the results of the test.
Every four years: Jeopardy! The Presidential Edition!
I don’t believe such a test should be required. It would be interesting, though, if POTUS candidates could opt to take such a test, along with a general intelligence test like the Wonderlic for NFL Combine attendees, and publish the results.
The appropriate constitutional amendment would be to remove those two clauses and just inaugurate the bloke who gets more than 270 EC votes. How many more hoops to jump through are needed?
No, if a majority of the people don’t care whether the President is grossly ignorant, it would be undemocratic to prevent them from giving an ignoramus the job. (I’ve said before I don’t agree with the minimum age requirement, for the same reason.)
Now, if a minority of the people don’t care, and our screwy system counts their votes more heavily than the majority, that’s another story… but it’s also another debate. 
Interesting view. I’ll admit I’ve always assumed the list was supposed to be exhaustive and Congress didn’t have the power to legislate additional requirements. But you’re correct that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say so.
Anyone know if there have been any such attempts by Congress? Or any court rulings on the subject?
I don’t think it’s ever been attempted for the presidency, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the qualifications for members of Congress are indeed exhaustive, so I’m not sure that an attempt to try that trick with the presidency would work.