Presidential Credentials Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
Presidential Credentials Law

Should Congress immediately pass, and the President sign, a Presidential Credentials Law?

This law would require at minimum that when a candidate announces his/her intent to run for the Presidency, that candidate shall submit for publication an AUTHENTICATED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, an AUTHENTICATED record of RECENT HEALTH EXAMINATIONS, AUTHENTICATED ACADEMIC RECORDS (including transcripts of grades and copies of graduate and post graduate theses), AUTHENTICATED RECORDS OF ARREST AND CONVICTION, and any other such documents as Congress shall deem appropriate to help the America people know as much as possible about the qualifications of the candidate.

Violation of this law of AUTHENTICATION shall be classed as a FELONY and an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
 
I needed to do that and more, pass qualifying exams for example, when I entered into my profession. For a government position, a statement of income, assets and other financial interests, as well as a copy of income tax returns would be a good idea, imho.
 
Congress can hardly make such demands of Presidential candidates but not Congressional candidates.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Congress can hardly make such demands of Presidential candidates but not Congressional candidates.
Click to expand...
Good point, and so it is not likely a law ever to be passed, or even allowed to be proposed and debated?
 
I think it would be a better use of your time to make reps a 4 year game so they’re not always in “election mode”

And install term limits. Mebbe 3 or 4 for reps, 2 for senators. Something like that.

The people are going to occasionally elect someone you don’t like. The republicans got Obama. The democrats now have Trump. I am dead-certain that the cycle will continue.
 
In most cases, when you enter a physician’s office the first thing you see is proof of professional credentials hanging on the wall.

There is nothing comparable for politicians, no way to grade them for their preparedness to govern … only for the eloquence of their propaganda.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Good point, and so it is not likely a law ever to be passed, or even allowed to be proposed and debated?
Click to expand...
Such a Federal law would probably be unconstitutional. Separation of Powers means that the Congress does not pick the President. Federalism means that it is up to the states to determine who is on the ballot in their state. The states could pass such laws.
 
po18guy said:
8 years too late.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately…

I would add certain university classes on history, politics, macroeconomics and of course religions and philosophy. And this should be considered for any congressman as well.
 
Ion said:
. . . university classes on history, politics, macroeconomics and of course religions and philosophy. And this should be considered for any congressman as well.
Click to expand...
While I would agree, call me cynical, but the first thing that popped into mind was a quote from CS Lewis:
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
Pope Francis is the only world leader worthy of respect. I feel a rant coming on, so I will bid you adieu.
 
Not sure why a thread on politics is in the philosophy forum, but I think you guys may find the Gettysburg Address doesn’t say ‘government of the people, by a tiny number of academic technocrats, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. 😉
 
inocente said:
Exactly 👍 It’s about fundamental questions. Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, Hobbes Leviathan, capitalism, socialism, etc. Not admin. No biggy.
Click to expand...
We cannot have **authentic **politics without an **authentic **political administration.

All politics is based on wisdom, justice, and ethics. We should be able to know whom we are voting for and their authentic ability to rule. Credentials are important. Plato would certainly agree. So would the United States Senate when it deliberates who is an authentic candidate for the Supreme Court which administers justice.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
We cannot have **authentic **politics without an **authentic **political administration.

All politics is based on wisdom, justice, and ethics. We should be able to know whom we are voting for and their authentic ability to rule. Credentials are important. Plato would certainly agree. So would the United States Senate when it deliberates who is an authentic candidate for the Supreme Court which administers justice.
Click to expand...
Identity verification is highly specialized and technical. Prevention of identify theft, fraud, impersonation - I’ve no idea how easy or difficult it would be to fake the papers in your OP, or steal another person’s. It would probably take a technical audit by geeks, cops and spies to find out. How easy is it for the Russians to plant a sleeper? Etc.

Seemed to me all of that is a long way from the political philosophy syllabus. No biggy.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
We cannot have **authentic **politics without an **authentic **political administration.

All politics is based on wisdom, justice, and ethics. We should be able to know whom we are voting for and their authentic ability to rule. Credentials are important. Plato would certainly agree. So would the United States Senate when it deliberates who is an authentic candidate for the Supreme Court which administers justice.
Click to expand...
While democracy appears to be the best political system out there, the problem you identify is that it is not possible without the truth.
In order to make informed decisions, we must know what the issues are and something about the candidates’ capacities to handle them.
It is unclear to me whether this is possible, even at the highest levels of involvement with the process. .

I have a financial adviser because I can’t be sure of where it is prudent to invest.
I have to trust that the person I’ve chosen, understands my goals, is straightforward with me and will make the “right” decisions.
The problem may be that going up through the hierarchies of power, changes people and/or selects certain types.
Perhaps it’s always been this way, but we seem to be more and more left with a choice between the frying pan or the fire.

Put up or shut up, I suppose. I can’t say I could do any better, and I will leave others to the endless, pointless meetings, the intrigue and backstabbing, the nonsense and frustration.

In the end there is no just governance without the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Let’s pray for all our leaders that they may govern with love.
 
Such a thing would likely require a Constitutional Amendment.

And right now, any natural-born citizen 35 years of age or older can (in theory) run for and become president. When you start putting restrictions on qualifications you limit potential candidates to just the rich and powerful.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Such a thing would likely require a Constitutional Amendment.

And right now, any natural-born citizen 35 years of age or older can (in theory) run for and become president. When you start putting restrictions on qualifications you limit potential candidates to just the rich and powerful.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I suggested restrictions on qualifications, but rather restrictions on what Presidential candidates can keep from the public awareness of their qualifications. The Constitution already requires that a candidate for the Presidency be an American. How is it a further restriction to require a law that the candidate present his birth certificate upon announcement of his candidacy? For that matter, how is it a restriction to require that he present all his academic qualifications, much as a candidate for the Supreme Court might be required to be vetted for his qualifications by the U.S. Senate at a public hearing, so that people can be aware of what they are getting?
 
As Lost_Sheep cited, there’re already some limitations on who may run for president–sensible ones, IMHO. If we start adding qualifications we limit the number and kind of people who may run. The whole idea of representative democracy is that candidates come from the people they represent. For the first time we have a true citizen president who wasn’t in the military, didn’t hold a public office, and had no law degree. The country voted him in precisely because he didn’t represent the usual D.C. beltway politician. I think the founding fathers got things pretty well right. I see no need to tinker with the Constitution or change things that don’t need changing. :tiphat:
 
Anyone is free to not vote for any candidate who has not released what they consider sufficient documentation. I did not vote for Trump in part because he did not release his tax returns.

But what justification is there for any one person or group of people to be able to impose their ideas of what constitutes sufficient documentation on other voters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top