requisites for president

[kwo51]

I think they if they all had draft age kids things would be different. Bushs twins on the first humvee in the country.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by kwo51

I think they if they all had draft age kids things would be different. Bushs twins on the first humvee in the country.

Maybe...or possibly not. We got into a lot of pointless wars when we had the draft (Korea, Vietnam, etc) the same as we do now.

IMO a couple of reforms that we could make to reduce the possibility of the flippant use of the military might be:

• The President cannot do any more than a very limited military strike in an emergency situation without having Congress authorize spending, and Congress cannot authorize military spending without an actual declaration of war. So...if we plan to invade Iraq, then Congress must issue a declaration of war on Iraq. We're either at war or we're not - there are no gray areas.
  
  
• Impose a "war tax" - pay for the war immediately, instead of running up a debt. People will give a little more thought when they receive a bill from the IRS in the mail demanding that they pay up for their share of the war in Crapistan. If most people got a letter from the IRS every year asking for $250 more for the war in Iraq, we would be organizing carpools to go picket the White House.
  
  
• Be more aggressive about demanding real, objective reasons for going to war. This bullshit about Iraqi freedom and democracy is just a bunch of nebulous idealism and is an insult to our intelligence. Wars are fought for hard, cold reasons - usually resources, land or just balance of power. If we go to war over oil, that might be ok, but I'd rather the government be honest about it rather than making up some ridiculous sob story about WMDs and how happy people will be to vote.

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by toreskha

Maybe...or possibly not. We got into a lot of pointless wars when we had the draft (Korea, Vietnam, etc) the same as we do now.

IMO a couple of reforms that we could make to reduce the possibility of the flippant use of the military might be:

• The President cannot do any more than a very limited military strike in an emergency situation without having Congress authorize spending, and Congress cannot authorize military spending without an actual declaration of war. So...if we plan to invade Iraq, then Congress must issue a declaration of war on Iraq. We're either at war or we're not - there are no gray areas.
  
  
• Impose a "war tax" - pay for the war immediately, instead of running up a debt. People will give a little more thought when they receive a bill from the IRS in the mail demanding that they pay up for their share of the war in Crapistan. If most people got a letter from the IRS every year asking for $250 more for the war in Iraq, we would be organizing carpools to go picket the White House.
  
  
• Be more aggressive about demanding real, objective reasons for going to war. This bullshit about Iraqi freedom and democracy is just a bunch of nebulous idealism and is an insult to our intelligence. Wars are fought for hard, cold reasons - usually resources, land or just balance of power. If we go to war over oil, that might be ok, but I'd rather the government be honest about it rather than making up some ridiculous sob story about WMDs and how happy people will be to vote.

Or presidents continually circumvent the constitution. We don't have wars. We have "police actions" so congress does not have to vote. I mean what does our constitution mean to our burocrates? Also if a president can't get a bill passed in congress he will just make a Presidential Directive or Executive Order and usurp the power of the legislative branch of government.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by HK4U

Or presidents continually circumvent the constitution. We don't have wars. We have "police actions" so congress does not have to vote. I mean what does our constitution mean to our burocrates? Also if a president can't get a bill passed in congress he will just make a Presidential Directive or Executive Order and usurp the power of the legislative branch of government.

That's the point. The power to conduct any substantial military action by Presidential order should be taken away. It has been substantially abused at all of our expense, and there's no compelling reason why it should continue to lie in the hands of the Executive branch. Congress needs to more actively stay on top of how the military is used.

Unless we're being attacked directly, or a quick, immediate airstrike is needed somewhere else, there is no legitimate reason why we should have to engage in the use of military force if we're not actually at war with some other country.

Part of what got us into this mess to begin with was the fuzzy logic of, "Well, we're not exactly 'at war' with Iraq...just Saddam Hussein and his government." We need to employ more binary logic from now on.

[kwo51]

McC ain has a 19 year son in the sand box now.

[tattedupboy]

I believe that military experience can't hurt, but the Constitution lists the requirements one must meet to seek the office of the presidency:

35 years of age or older;
natural born citizen
must have been a permanent resident of the United States for at least 14 years

Just as all of us cite the Constitution as our CCW law, so too should we cite it to tell us who can or cannot be president. So, while military experience is a plus, one cannot be disqualified due to a lack of it. It's bad enough that RKBA has been legislated away without amending the Constitution, but we all agree that it is wrong and violates the constitution; passing legislation to require military service for presidential candidates would also be unconstitutional. If we want to require prospective presidential candidates to have military service, the only way it can be legally done is to amend the constitution.