It would be a silly result if Congress could impose restrictions on who could become president. In theory they could then make the requirements so onerous that no one was qualified and eliminate the office entirely.
In addition to being unconstitutional, it would become inherently political. Imagine the following question: “True or False: Tax cuts stimulate the economy and create jobs.” Who decides the correct answer to that question?
Further, if the President has to pass such a test, shouldn’t the people voting have to pass the same test? That is an enormous can of worms.
If this is such a great idea, why is it that no democratic country in the world has done it?
That’s a policy position/opinion. It has nothing to do with how the government works.
I agree. Will the test writers agree with our position?
“Pass a written test” is obviously a presidential criterion that’s wide open to abuse - as witness, any case in history where voters have had to pass one in order to vote.
Here’s one that wouldn’t be:
“Presidential candidates must previously have been elected to one of …” perhaps governor, member of Senate or Reps, member of State legislature.
Obviously that would have stymied some perfectly reasonable former presidents (Eisenhower being the most recent example) - but then, that slightly weird ‘can’t be born outside the US’ criterion has knocked a whole bunch of people unnecessarily out of the running (hands up, who doesn’t think Arnie would have made a MUCH more sane, not to mention patriotic, POTUS than the current doofus-in-chief)
Even if it were Constitutional and not a land mine of potential interpretations, what’s to stop one of the Senators from slipping the answers to the candidate?
Would it need to implemented at the congressional level though? It’s my understanding from previous threads recently that there’s no particular requirement for electors from each state to be chosen by vote, that’s just over the years gradually been implemented as the way things are done.
Suppose a State legislature made a rule that no presidential candidate who didn’t fulfill <whatever criterion > would be listed on that state’s ballots. Would that not be constitutional? As long as the criterion wasn’t sex/race/other protected class.
They already do. It’s called an election.
Apparently, we (press & public) failed this time around. :smack:
Only if voters have to take the same test.
That would take a constitutional amendment to enact. But beyond that question, I think the better solution for this is voter education so that they do not vote for people who do not demonstrate a basic understanding of civics or who make promises they can’t possibly keep or promise to enact policies that are actually detrimental to the voters’ needs and wants.
Such a test already exists, but it was made by the College Board, not the Senate.
China had a similar system for hundreds of years. To achieve any kind of power: political, economic, social, artistic whatever. You had to pass the knowledge exams.
In theory, it was a meritocracy, and the route was open to everyone. In practice, it helped if you had rich parents to pay the private tutors, and the support to spend years in education, studying the canon.
Maybe it doesn’t have to be an amendment to the Constitution, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the two major parties (and all minor parties, if they’re so inclined) to have restrictions on their national party candidates. “To be eligible to be our nominee, the candidate must demonstrate adequate knowledge of history, civics, etc based on _____(insert criteria here) by ___ date. Also, s/he must release tax returns.”
It’s not going to happen, but it wouldn’t be unmanageable to have it happen that way in a perfect world.
Except the head of state (the Emperor) didn’t have to pass the exams. So no, it’s not the same at all. It’s actually more like what we have right now.
Good thing not, otherwise Obama would have failed. I reference his statement there were 57 States, plus a couple other gems from the 2008 campaign.
The point being that no one person would ever pass such a test to the satisfaction of their opponents.
Trump inherited the position?
Instead of a knowledge test, I’m thinking anyone who wants to run for President should be required to under go a full psych evaluation, from an independent doctor, with the results being made public. They don’t have to get any particular result to “qualify” to run, they just have to take it.
Assuming the test were written, then aren’t you adding a literacy requirement for the office?
No.