Presidential Credentials Law?

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

We do it all the time.

The law prohibit people from passing counterfeit money or using a phony driver’s license.

Would you take away from the state the right to certify authentic birth certificates, for example? Would you say it’s o.k. for someone to run for president who cannot even produce an authentic (“sufficiently documented”) birth certificate?

Does the Catholic Church (a “group of people”) not have the right to demand an authentic certificate of baptism prior to marriage or confirmation?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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:

We have already tinkered with the Constitution with all the Amendments to it, including a fairly recent Amendment that limits two terms for a President.

If we do not have authentic proof of birth citizenship for the presidency, how can we prevent foreigners from clandestinely taking over the government?

 

[Erich]

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

Who was it who said, “We should limit congressmen to two terms: one in Congress, one in prison”?

One term limits proposal I’ve seen would limit Representatives to six two-year terms, Senators to two six-year terms, and Presidents to three four-year terms.

 

[Erich]

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”

I think that would make reps less responsive to the people who elected them almost immediately after they are elected,

I can’t begin to fathom how much damage would have been done to this country had there not been midterm elections in 2010.

 

[Della]

We have already tinkered with the Constitution with all the Amendments to it, including a fairly recent Amendment that limits two terms for a President.

If we do not have authentic proof of birth citizenship for the presidency, how can we prevent foreigners from clandestinely taking over the government?

The law already states that a candidate for president must be a natural born citizen. We have a safeguard in all the information readily available to nearly everyone. Anyone who might try to fudge records would be found out.

For example, I know many believed Obama wasn’t a natural born US citizen–and they tried to prove it for years, but never could. I was no fan of Obama, but if he had been born in Kenya someone would have found it out by now.

Our current media is largely biased against conservatives, so I believe any information that would have put a legal end to candidate Trump’s run for president would also have been ferreted out by now. Our system has worked quite well for two centuries I see no reason to add more, unnecessary restrictions.

As for tax records, no one is obligated to release such information since it is private. If people want to base their votes on releasing tax records that’s up to them, but it seems a pretty poor litmus test to me. After all, if a candidate hasn’t broken tax laws, what business is if of anyone? The public should only be made aware of such records if a candidate broke the tax laws.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

For that matter, how is it a restriction to require that he present all his academic qualifications

It’s an invasion of privacy.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

We do it all the time.

The law prohibit people from passing counterfeit money or using a phony driver’s license.
Would you take away from the state the right to certify authentic birth certificates, for example? Would you say it’s o.k. for someone to run for president who cannot even produce an authentic (“sufficiently documented”) birth certificate?

Apples and Oranges

Does the Catholic Church (a “group of people”) not have the right to demand an authentic certificate of baptism prior to marriage or confirmation?

The CC is for all practical purposes a private organizations and can make its rules as it sees fit.

This is far different that a government passing laws.

 

[Della]

It’s an invasion of privacy.

Exactly. Unless a candidate has broken laws or been publically reprimanded/kicked out of a school/the armed forces, etc., academic records and any other private records cannot be lawfully demanded of anyone.

If a candidate wants to put out his private records, whatever they may be, that’s up to him. Sometimes it’s politically expedient and sometimes it isn’t. It certainly didn’t hurt Trump’s campaign that he kept most of his records private.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As for tax records, no one is obligated to release such information since it is private. If people want to base their votes on releasing tax records that’s up to them, but it seems a pretty poor litmus test to me. After all, if a candidate hasn’t broken tax laws, what business is if of anyone? The public should only be made aware of such records if a candidate broke the tax laws.

Tax records can show potential conflicts of interest, e.g., business relationships with foreign entities.

All of President Trump’s cabinet appointees were in fact required to release their tax information as a matter of law.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If a candidate wants to put out his private records, whatever they may be, that’s up to him. Sometimes it’s politically expedient and sometimes it isn’t. It certainly didn’t hurt Trump’s campaign that he kept most of his records private.

Back when Trump was criticizing Obama for not releasing his academic record, Trump promised that he would release his own tax records if he ran for president. I for one don’t think it’s silly to hold Trump to his promises.

 

[Della]

Tax records can show potential conflicts of interest, e.g., business relationships with foreign entities.

All of President Trump’s cabinet appointees were in fact required to release their tax information as a matter of law.

There is a difference between cabinet appointees, who are selected by the president and then approved by Congress. It’s a different ball of wax.

As I wrote, and will not repeat again, the media is very good at ferreting out such discrepancies. And if there is anything illegal about any relationships those should be exposed. But simply having had business deals with foreign entities, etc. does not automatically disqualify anyone from being a candidate for president. Associations can be broken, businesses sold to others, etc. It’s not a crime to do business with other countries before being elected into office.
Just Lurking:

Back when Trump was criticizing Obama for not releasing his academic record, Trump promised that he would release his own tax records if he ran for president. I for one don’t think it’s silly to hold Trump to his promises.

And how many campaign promises have candidates made they didn’t keep? We aren’t talking about if candidates ought to keep promises, but what criteria they would have to meet if more restrictions were placed on who may run. I could care less about any candidates academic or tax records. No candidate is running for saint or for “smartest person in America,” after all. I didn’t vote for Trump because of the promises he made but for the general platform upon which he based his candidacy, which was the complete opposite in many key areas with that of his opponent.

Should platforms also be restricted? Should only certain persons approved by elites be allowed to run? Should we return to backroom wheeling and dealing for candidates? Why not let the Senate appointed a president, as was first proposed? Where does it end?

G. K. Chesterton wrote that before tearing something down and/or replacing it, it might be wise to ask why it’s there in the first place. Why didn’t the founding fathers put more limitations on who should run? Didn’t they have the example of despots and tyrants from all of history as warnings? Certainly they did, but they put their faith in the people to elect persons they believe qualified. People such as Truman who never went to college and whose attempts as a businessman failed miserably. Should the JFK not have run because his family had gained their wealth by less than honorable means? Who do we exclude from politic office? This is America where anyone with the grit and determination can become whatever he wants. Let’s not limit that to only the “deserving,” whoever we think that ought to be.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s an invasion of privacy.

It’s also a cowardly act for a candidate to refuse to divulge his academic credentials.

Such a candidate has something to hide, poor grades?

 

[Della]

It’s also a cowardly act for a candidate to refuse to divulge his academic credentials.

Really? Cowardly? Why? Because it’s no one’s business but his/her own?

Such a candidate has something to hide, poor grades?

Poor grades do not disqualify anyone from running for president, nor does failure in other parts of anyone’s life (heinous crime being the obvious exception). Shouldn’t other accomplishments have some influence on voters? I cited Harry S. Truman, who never ran a successful business and never went to college. Lincoln never went to college. Grades really have very little to do with anyone’s ability to be a good president.

No, and again no. Your list of “credentials” would only exclude many good candidates, and some credentials on your list are against the law, for goodness sake.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Really? Cowardly? Why? Because it’s no one’s business but his/her own?

Poor grades do not disqualify anyone from running for president, nor does failure in other parts of anyone’s life (heinous crime being the obvious exception). Shouldn’t other accomplishments have some influence on voters? I cited Harry S. Truman, who never ran a successful business and never went to college. Lincoln never went to college. Grades really have very little to do with anyone’s ability to be a good president.

No, and again no. Your list of “credentials” would only exclude many good candidates, and some credentials on your list are against the law, for goodness sake.

I really wish you would stop deliberately misreading EVERYTHING I SAY.

Obviously, grades do not disqualify anyone from being President. The point is just to find out all the qualifications a person may have to govern. Are the people to be denied this knowledge because you say it is none of their business. What if they think it is their business to know as much as they can about candidates for office?

Do you think it’s none of the IRS’s business to know how much money we make each years and whether we pay our taxes. Is their curiosity not to be satisfied so that they know we are upstanding and competent and honest citizens?

Privacy rights are limited. Get real!!!

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Do you think it’s none of the IRS’s business to know how much money we make each years and whether we pay our taxes. Is their curiosity not to be satisfied so that they know we are upstanding and competent and honest citizens?

Yes, it is the IRS’s business to know that. But it’s not the general public’s business to know that.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think presidents should be my race, independently wealthy, a member of a church, have an impeccable Ivy-League academic record and have absolutely no moral flaws in their past. They would do an excellent job of forwarding the interests of the 0.00001% of Americans that they existentially represent; which I think I’m a member of.

end sarcasm

Sometimes the president is “your guy”. Sometimes they aren’t. It usually cycles about every 8 years. You’ll get your turn. Welcome to modern democracy.

The most glorious aspect of it is that no one “team” gets to run with the ball forever. If either did, calamity would likely ensue.

 

[Della]

I really wish you would stop deliberately misreading EVERYTHING I SAY.

I had no intention of doing that, and I don’t think I did.

Obviously, grades do not disqualify anyone from being President. The point is just to find out all the qualifications a person may have to govern. Are the people to be denied this knowledge because you say it is none of their business. What if they think it is their business to know as much as they can about candidates for office?

But it isn’t anyone’s business except those to whom a candidate wishes to reveal his/her grades. So, it’s a matter of privacy, pure and simple. Didn’t you list revealing one’s grades as one of the credentials for someone running for president? How am I misreading you?

Do you think it’s none of the IRS’s business to know how much money we make each years and whether we pay our taxes. Is their curiosity not to be satisfied so that they know we are upstanding and competent and honest citizens?

I’m afraid you have are the one reading things into my statements that I didn’t express. Of course the IRS should know and does know what our tax records contain. Where did I say it doesn’t/shouldn’t? I only said that private citizens do not have that right–indeed it is a felony to reveal another person’s tax records. If a candidate wants to share his/her tax records that’s fine, but they cannot be forced to do so–because forcing them to reveal that information is a felony. It’s just that simple.

Privacy rights are limited. Get real!!!

I never said they aren’t limited. I’m afraid you are reading things into statements that aren’t there. Probably because you feel so strongly about the things you think candidates ought to be forced to reveal. But, as I stated, some of the things you want to make mandatory are against privacy laws–and for good reason.

As voters we are free to decide what credentials we believe candidates ought to have, but not everyone has the same list as you, nor would everyone want the same list you cited. I think you may wish to review your list and research what is legal, what isn’t and why, and then ask if, perhaps, you need to rethink your credentials.