As you may or may not know, the Constitution establishes only the barest minimum qualifications for serving as President of the United States. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads,
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.
That's it. The only Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency are native birth, 35 years or more of age, and a resident within the country for 14 years. This is how you get presidents like Der Furor.
An interesting meme has been floating around on Facebook that addresses this topic. Naturally, I neglected to download a copy immediately and now can no longer find it anywhere, so bear with me while I try to reconstruct the idea, and offer my own highly-respected commentary ...
Since most of our presidents have been independently wealthy, politically well-connected, or both, we have had a run of presidents in the modern era (say, since the end of World War II) who have little understanding of the lives and concerns of ordinary, everyday Americans. With this in mind, here's a suggested list of some experiences that anyone seeking the presidency should have had. Nobody is likely to check all these boxes, but the more, the better:
Be no more than 65 years of age on the date of inauguration. Recent experience with former President Biden and, especially, Der Furor, vividly illustrates the effect of age on physical performance and - especially in Der Furor's case - behavior. Full disclosure: I'm almost 75.
Pass an independently-administered cognitive test. I think we all know why that would be a good idea.
Attended a public elementary and/or high school. Provides experience meeting and mixing with people of other races and religions, as well as a solid basic education.
Pumped their own gas and purchased their own groceries. This sounds silly, but some of you will remember the time when President George H.W. Bush was apparently flummoxed by a supermarket scanner. The story may be only partially true, but someone who's led a privileged life probably doesn't have the best understanding of and empathy for those who didn't.
Higher Education. A college degree isn't always necessary, as some of our most successful presidents did not have one - Washington, Lincoln, and Truman come to mind. However, the world is a lot more complicated than it was in their time and, in general, the more and broader the education, the better.
Be the parent of at least one child. Managing a household and dealing with the challenges of raising a family provides insight into the problems and issues faced by families.
Served in the Armed Forces. A full career is not necessary, but service as a senior NCO or an Officer provides valuable leadership and management experience, as well as the experience of working with and depending on people of other races, religions, and economic backgrounds.
Speak at least one foreign language. Demonstrates an awareness of and appreciation for other cultures. Extra credit for capability (even if limited) in more than one.
Be a taxpayer in good standing at both federal and state levels, and release ten years of tax returns for public information. The Constitution* charges the president with "tak(ing) Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and this is a way to demonstrate that even presidents obey the tax laws that everyday Americans must follow.
Never convicted of a felony. I think this one's pretty obvious.
Previous experience as a state governor, senator, or representative. Such experience provides lessons in government management and political cooperation, as well as an understanding of how government actually works.
Experience in community activism. Gives a feel for the street-level concerns of the people he or she would represent.
Worked in a minimum-wage job for at least a year. Experience in a service job or other low-paid position gives insights into the needs of people who are otherwise invisible to those higher on the economic ladder.
Traveled to at least five states and three foreign countries. Anyone seeking the presidency must be able to understand the viewpoints of people from across the nation and around the world. Travel is one of the best ways to get at least some experience. Extra credit for having actually lived for at least a year in a foreign country.
Those are my suggestions, incorporating comments and suggestions from my friends Kathy and her husband Richard, whose opinion I value. What do you think? What would you add or delete? Would implementing any of these require a Constitutional amendment or just a law duly passed by Congress? I welcome your comments and ideas.
Have a good day. The 2026 midterm elections are less than a week away - have you voted yet? If not, do you have a plan to vote on election day?
More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
* Article II, Section 3.
I don't think the answer is mandating a long list of qualifications that can cumulatively act to exclude some otherwise worthy individuals (like the necessity of having children -- yikes). I think the solution is to restrict the independent powers of a president to act without accountability. For example, no prime minister in a Westminster-based parliamentary system has anywhere near the independent powers of the American president, and that's a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI saw the meme you referenced on Facebook, and thought many of the points rang true...especially the ones that showed a candidate was in touch with everyday people (i.e., knows their way around a gas station/grocery store). However, I'm on the fence about many of the others
ReplyDeleteI think *any* elected official should have to pass a background check commensurate with the position they're seeking.
ReplyDeleteWould 4 semesters of high school Spanish (all D's) count?
ReplyDeleteAll of these in combination would probably disqualify about 95% of the population. Would we really want to exclude an otherwise excellent candidate because he or she was never in the military (there are lots of other fields that provide "leadership and management experience") or was never involved in "community activism", however that's defined? It seems similar in spirit to the Republicans using endless pretexts to limit who can vote and how.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe the courts have generally struck down attempts to impose further limitations on who qualifies to be president, on the grounds that the Constitution has specified the qualifications and did not intend to allow any others. So any such measures would require a Constitutional amendment -- that is, it's impossible.
It's better to keep on letting the voters decide at the ballot box who is qualified, rather than have politicians impose a long list of exclusions which just reflect their own ideological views. Who says that "experience working with people of other races" is a mandatory qualification, for example? Is the skin color of your co-workers really that important? Half the country would probably start the list with "experience in handling and firing guns", on the grounds that the lack of this shows unfamiliarity with a vital part of the culture of vast areas of the country. We should just stick with the existing Constitutional qualifications and let the voters decide.
"Be the parent of at least one child" but without (stacks of money and) access to nannies and private tutors?
ReplyDelete