Qualifications for U.S. President

Remove all ads!

The U.S. constitution sets relatively few requirements for eligibility to hold the office of U.S. president: 35 years of age, U.S. citizen who was born in the U.S., and residency in the U.S. for a certain minimum time, which I forget. (I think I have them right!)

Should there be other requirements? Should any of the requirements be changed or eliminated? For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger's supporters feel the requirement of birth in the U.S. should be eliminated.

What about adding requirements? Minimum education, for instance. Or, ahem, minimum IQ. Maybe a polygraph exam? Or a security background check before you're allowed to run?

Just wondering what other SPer's think.

 

I could see the requirement get lifted if the republicans get desperate enough to want to run Arnold. The last actor-turned-governor-turned president turned out quite well for the republican party, so I don't see an attempt at a Schwarzenegger presidency sometime in the future as all that far fetched.

 

Why change a system that has been working fine for 231 years?

 

I agree with TGS. I think the Founders knew what they were doing.

 

I doubt job qualifications for the president should be changed.

But is it working?

America just recovers from 5 years of absence of checks and ballances because congressmen and senators valued party loyalty over doing their jobs as legislators. I daresay the de-facto two party system doesn't work as advertised.
But maybe the electoral system requires overhaul. What America IMO needs is a little more diversity in politics, like the green party in Congress, or maybe a for a change That would stir things up.

 

The founding fathers were violently opposed, by all accounts, to political parties.

We have political parties--two of them that matter.

Therefore I conclude that the founding fathers weren't so bright after all.

Oh, yes, and we had a civil war as a direct result of the way they set the system up. I think that counts as a bit of an error.

 

Wouldn't advocate changing the presidential requirements but I would like to see more diversity in our national politics.

 

If by 'has been working fine' you mean 'has led to ****loads of problems on a national and international scale numerous times over', then sure, I agree.

Frankly I think that the American system is set up terribly. Changing the rules of who can run for president probably won't help (though I'd throw out the age one, which seems a bit pointless and silly), but I'd say that the system is far from working fine...

 

Proportional electrate system is the way to go. Follow europes example!

I wouldn't like to see any further requirements put upon running for presidency. Having an education requirement ruins part of the whole democratic thing even more, as it descriminates against a good proportion of the population.

Another thing that would be good to see would be the removal of private funding in election campaigns. Make it all state funding, so you get these big businesses out of politics.

 

The qualifications seem reasonable enough, I see no reason to change them. The part about being born in the US could be changed to a specific amount of time lived in the US as a US citizen but it's not really that important.

Considering the amount of scandals and the amount of complaints about corruption within American politics I would have to disagree that it's working overly well. I have no idea how to change it though. It probably runs too deep in the American political culture to be changed anytime soon. Personally I would like to see the presidental power cut and more power given to the congress, in my view the congress seems way too weak compared to the president.

 

Yep, it is one screwed up system. Of course it is still better than anything else tried so far.

Technically you don't have to be born in the US...but you would have to be a natural-born citizen...e.g. if you were born outside the US, but your parents are US citizens, you are eligible. Of course you could also be the child of illegal aliens and still be President...but you would have had to been born on US soil.

It is easier to say that you can't be a naturalized citizen.

Personally I think that any citizen should be able to run. In today's world the microscope that a person is put under pretty much discloses everything about them, so I don't think a closet Al Queada member could become a citizen and be elected.

However as was mentioned, this would require a Constitutional Amendment, and this is a very expensive process...the money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

Hmm, interesting discussion so far. Darkwolf, thanks for the clarification on being a natural-born citizen.

As a geezer American who has seen several presidencies and on the whole hasn't liked them, I have to say we don't elect people I consider to be good leaders, though they are often superb politicians. It's frustrating. In fact, the whole process of multiple candidates weeded out by primaries and then having two parties "pick" a candidate at a convention seems almost designed to eliminate actual leaders in favor of politicians.

Oh, well. And Montresor is almost certainly right about the constitutional amendment having no chance. But it's all just a thought experiment anyway.

 

I think the third requirement is acutally living in the US for 14 years during your adult life. In this regard, Arnold does qualify, as he has certainly lived in the US for 14 years. (Although I don't know when he became a US citizen.) I think the reason the initial rule of being born in the US was implemented is because at the time the Constitution was written, there were a TON of people living in the US who were not born there, and someone born in say, Britain, would have a much greater chance of being a British sympathiser, which obviously would not have been a good thing for fledgling US. Similarly, even if the person was born in the US, it wouldn't do if he lived his entire adult life in Britain for the same reasons.

 

Proportional electrate system would rock America, literally. Splendid Idea IMO.

 

Well, as an American, I do see a lot of potential for a proprotional electorate system. I'm not saying I think it could actually happen, but I do see some advantages (and few disadvantages) by proportional representation. The current system we have is IMO, lacking in several regards. I think it would be helpful if some members of the fringle political parties got some seats in Congress. For example, if 3% of the American populace supports the Green Party, then I see nothing wrong with the Green Party controlling 3% of Congressional seats. If nothing else, I think it would force Congress to work together, and come up with some more compromises. As it currently stands, there really is no logical reason for whatever party happens to be in power to compromise on anything - since they already HAVE a majority, those out of power can't get any of the legislation they want passed anyway.

 

Remarkable what influence the German Greens had, with barely ever more than 7% of the votes.

 

The downside is that you can get loonybins like the Swedish "New Democracy" or other populistic xenophobic rightwing parties to hold a position of scaletippers. The big drawback with the proportionate system is that it is possible for a party/group to get a vastly disproportionate amount of influence.

Otherwise I think any other system is cooky.

 

So did they, and that did stop them from forming their respective opposing parties: Jefferson's and Madison's Democratic-Republican party, and Hamilton's and Washington's Federalist party.