Military Service as a requirement for U.S. President

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-04-03 06:03pm

Below is a quote of the criteria a person must meet to become President of the United States (from Article II of the Constitution):

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

I have always thought that anyone who is going to be the Commander-in-Chief should also have served in the military in some capacity. Any thoughts?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-04-03 06:04pm

I @%!@#'ed up. Please move to the Politics forum if necessary.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-04-03 06:05pm

Why? the current system in place works just fine. If It Aint Broke, Don't 'Fix' It.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-03 06:06pm

requiring someone to serve in the military would limit the presidential candidates to exclusively military/ex military personnel. i don't imagine alot of citizens would be unhappy at the thought that joe average citizen would be unable to run for president without volunteering for military duty first.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-04-03 06:07pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Why? the current system in place works just fine. If It Aint Broke, Don't 'Fix' It.

Or, instead of "Fixing" the system, add a small patch. Give em the opportunity to run for a third term if they have a non-negligible amount of Military Service under the belt. Kind of a "You've served your country, now reap the rewards" sort of deal...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-03 06:07pm

EDIT: unhappy = happy. sodding typos.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-04-03 06:09pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Why? the current system in place works just fine. If It Aint Broke, Don't 'Fix' It.

Having prior military experience of any type is better than going into the presidency and not knowing dick about the military. It has the potential of putting the president at the mercy of his military advisors.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-03 06:35pm

This would be a disaster, as only those fit for service could be president.
So Yosemite Bear couldn't be a president, because he is a diabetic.
Do you want people being disqualified from the presidency because they have bad eyes, flat feet, diabeties, or are deaf in one ear? (Tom Bailey* couldn't be president under THAT system, and what a great president he would be.)
The list of medical reasons you can't be in the military for having has NOTHING to do with judgement, or fitness to rule. They are made to weed out the "weak" one, not up to the riggours of combat.

*(It's a wonderful life)

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-04-03 06:47pm

I don't know... although it's not fair, I would prefer not to have a disabled/sick/otherwise messed up president if at all possible. It doesn't look good. I'm sure that we could find someone who is both not physically messed up and not a moron to take the job.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-04-03 06:47pm

Defiant wrote: Having prior military experience of any type is better than going into the presidency and not knowing dick about the military. It has the potential of putting the president at the mercy of his military advisors.

Doldrums. I have been in the military, and if I should someday find myself to be Bundeskanzler I'm reasonably certain I could draw much more useful information from my collection of Tom Clancy novels than from my military experience (and that's saying something).
The problem is that unless the Prez is required to be a former JCS member or some such he will not have any knowledge of military affairs at the scope he will be dealing with as POTUS.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-04-03 06:50pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:(Tom Bailey* couldn't be president under THAT system, and what a great president he would be.)*(It's a wonderful life)

Its George Bailey btw

And yes he would make a great president

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-03 06:57pm

Terrible idea.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-04-03 07:11pm

Seggybop wrote:I don't know... although it's not fair, I would prefer not to have a disabled/sick/otherwise messed up president if at all possible. It doesn't look good. I'm sure that we could find someone who is both not physically messed up and not a moron to take the job.

Yeah, there was this wheelchair-bound presidant, and he fucked up tremendously. Made us lose a war, too.

Oh wait....

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-03 07:14pm

Seggybop wrote:I don't know... although it's not fair, I would prefer not to have a disabled/sick/otherwise messed up president if at all possible. It doesn't look good. I'm sure that we could find someone who is both not physically messed up and not a moron to take the job.

That's makes sense. I mean, look at FDR! He was "physically messed up" and he was the worst president ever.

EDIT:
Curse you, Fgalkin... you beat me to it.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-04-03 07:16pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Why? the current system in place works just fine. If It Aint Broke, Don't 'Fix' It.
Or, instead of "Fixing" the system, add a small patch. Give em the opportunity to run for a third term if they have a non-negligible amount of Military Service under the belt. Kind of a "You've served your country, now reap the rewards" sort of deal...

That's an okay compromise.

What would _REALLY_ fix this country is the total abolition of all campaign contributions at all whatsoever. Make these politicos realize who they really are working for.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-04-03 07:17pm

This would also be religious discrimination, as people whose religions require them to be conscientious objectors, like Quakers and the Amish, would be disqualified.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-04-03 07:17pm

I would rather have a non-military president with smart advisors, that an idiot who thinks he knows everything becasue he served in the military.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-04-03 07:37pm

I think it's a bad idea simply because it would prevent otherwise great leaders from getting into office because they were incapable of serving in the military. Also, military service insn't a detertmining factor in how ethical and capable of leading a country a politician is.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-04-03 07:40pm

Defiant wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Why? the current system in place works just fine. If It Aint Broke, Don't 'Fix' It.
Having prior military experience of any type is better than going into the presidency and not knowing dick about the military. It has the potential of putting the president at the mercy of his military advisors.

If the the US President was say a tank commander in the Army for several years, how could this give him any insight on how the Air Force's can maintain air dominance?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-04-03 07:42pm

If the the US President was say a tank commander in the Army for several years, how could this give him any insight on how the Air Force's can maintain air dominance?

Well as an officer likley he would have to have done a joint service tour and learned all about the other branchs of the military and how quickly the Air Force can or can't get Air domincance if based on nothing else then when airplanes stop trying to blow up his tank

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-04-03 07:43pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:This would be a disaster, as only those fit for service could be president.
So Yosemite Bear couldn't be a president, because he is a diabetic.
Do you want people being disqualified from the presidency because they have bad eyes, flat feet, diabeties, or are deaf in one ear? (Tom Bailey* couldn't be president under THAT system, and what a great president he would be.)
The list of medical reasons you can't be in the military for having has NOTHING to do with judgement, or fitness to rule. They are made to weed out the "weak" one, not up to the riggours of combat.

This is a point that I hadn't considered. I guess I just have a problem with someone who may have no military training or exposure being the Commander-in-Chief. True, there's an entire apparatus setup to provide the President with military information, but it still seems like a bad idea to me. Just personal opinion.

Is everyone saying that the way things stand now is OK?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-03 07:57pm

Why? What unvarying advantage does military service bring to the office?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-04-03 08:02pm

Mr Bean wrote:
If the the US President was say a tank commander in the Army for several years, how could this give him any insight on how the Air Force's can maintain air dominance?
Well as an officer likley he would have to have done a joint service tour and learned all about the other branchs of the military and how quickly the Air Force can or can't get Air domincance if based on nothing else then when airplanes stop trying to blow up his tank

Ah, so now it's not just serving in the military, but having been an officer in the military?

This is a point that I hadn't considered. I guess I just have a problem with someone who may have no military training or exposure being the Commander-in-Chief. True, there's an entire apparatus setup to provide the President with military information, but it still seems like a bad idea to me. Just personal opinion.

IIRC, the whole point of making the President CINC was to ensure that the military remained firmly in civilian control.

I really don't see a problem with it. The President shouldn't be wasting his valuable time planning war strategy and tactics; he should give the admirals and generals directives and objectives, and they go and formulate plans designed to accomplish those objectives, as well as advising him on the costs and feasibility of said objectives.

A smart President would (and should be able to) trust the years of knowledge and experience that his military advisors have. If you have to mandate service for any position, make military experience a requirement for service as Secretary of Defense.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-04-03 08:03pm

This would make Lincoln Inelegable as well. And who says a Military man will always make a good president

Ulysses S Grant comes to mind

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-04-03 08:21pm

I see several huge problems with this:

1. Not everyone can be in the military. If someone wants to be president, but had childhood asthma, then too bad.

2. Not everyone wants to be in the military. There are some people who just wouldn't fit the lifestyle. There are some people who would rather serve their country in some other capacity such as police officer, fireman, teacher, etc. There are some people would better the country by going into business and creating new markets and jobs, etc.

3. Being in the military would not necessarily make one a good president. To even understand the military with a scope to make Secretary level decisions, one must have spent a large amount of time in the system, working multiple joint command jobs. These people are few. Moreover, a president needs to know more than just how the military runs. He/she should also understand how economics work, so perhaps that not only should a military career be required, but a career on Wall Street too.

There are other reasons obviousily, but these are the ones I'll bring up for now.