Should Military Service be a Requirement for the office of President?

[yepthatsme]

I agree with IndyDave1776 and voted no. While I think that military service adds to a persons life experience and might help to expand a persons problem solving skills, it should never be a requirement. I could see where it could create another class of privileged people. No, our founders where very wise in how they created our government by allowing anyone to run for office, even if it includes people like Obama. Oowwwww! (I just bit my tongue with that last statement.)

 

[MTC]

I will stand by my position that honorable and effective military service is a very good consideration to take with you to the voting booth, but making military service a requirement is a terrible idea as it establishes a de facto nobility. Our founders did not include a prohibition of granting titles of nobility in the Constitution just as filler material. The idea was to prevent having multiple classes of citizenship in which any citizen was excluded de jure from any part of our society (slavery notwithstanding).

It is also significant to note that the rise of the European nobility followed the basic pattern of men at arms being employed by villages for defense and over time increasing their position, political standing, and political power until they became lords over their former employers. Significantly, this is one of the reasons I am as concerned as I am with some of the ongoing trends regarding law enforcement personnel and the apparent shift from public servants to public masters. The same applies to making military service a de jure requirement for public office.

Oh, and just for the record, personal failings and all, Petraeus would have made a better president than anyone in office in my lifetime aside from Reagan.

Deserves repeating. Bolded for emphasis.

(Rep commissar says you must spread the wealth to the rest of the proletariat.)

 

[cerebus85]

Maybe not a requirement but there should be some sort of foundation that they have built for society. Currently less than one percent of the population serves in the military. If out of that we tried to get a future president we'd probably be just as unhappy. Although I think it's a great thing to have I can't blame someone getting experience elsewhere as long as it applies to keeping my country strong prosperous and respectable. Many a man have led soldiers to victory after being teachers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and the like. It's what makes us what we are.
Remove the corporate sponsorship and hidden foundations and you will see who has qualities to lead.

 

[Libertarian01]

It isn't just about the military.

Right now I'd settle for a reasonably conservative ECONOMICS major!

Regards,

Doug

 

[Bill of Rights]

I prefer Heinlien's method service for citizenship! To be a full citizen with voting rights and such, military service is required.

And as others said, it was "Federal service", not specifically military. I have to wonder (I didn't read the book, I know I need to) if it specified federal because there were no other governments. In the movie, Rico was from Buenos Aires, but served alongside everyone else, so "federal" may have meant "world gov't", it would seem. I have to wonder if, to use my own example, being a medic, perhaps even not governmentally employed, would qualify me for citizenship.

I simply wish we could go a requirement of being a taxpayer to vote. Simple, you had taxable income, retirement, land owner, ect... something that requires you to have a little skin in the game. Even if you get a full refund because you are working minimum wage somewhere, you still paid SS and Medicare taxes. Retired, you used to pay taxes and frankly, I think most pensions are taxed anyway. Own land, you pay property taxes.

Leach off of society, sorry. You don't get a say in how the government is ran until you contribute even a little something.

I'd go a step farther (and I've not really thought this through, but it sounds good on the surface) and say that one must either be a wage earner or retired from a position where he was one, to vote or be involved in gov't. I might be persuaded that a small business owner would qualify. This, I think, would remove the "big money" and corporately owned politicians, and return gov't to the people. The saying goes that gov't still works, it just no longer works for us.

I will stand by my position that honorable and effective military service is a very good consideration to take with you to the voting booth, but making military service a requirement is a terrible idea as it establishes a de facto nobility. Our founders did not include a prohibition of granting titles of nobility in the Constitution just as filler material. The idea was to prevent having multiple classes of citizenship in which any citizen was excluded de jure from any part of our society (slavery notwithstanding).

It is also significant to note that the rise of the European nobility followed the basic pattern of men at arms being employed by villages for defense and over time increasing their position, political standing, and political power until they became lords over their former employers. Significantly, this is one of the reasons I am as concerned as I am with some of the ongoing trends regarding law enforcement personnel and the apparent shift from public servants to public masters. The same applies to making military service a de jure requirement for public office.

Oh, and just for the record, personal failings and all, Petraeus would have made a better president than anyone in office in my lifetime aside from Reagan.

I'm not sure I follow this thinking, Dave. In the nobility, specifically knighthood, one had to be specifically chosen by those of royal blood (divine right of kings, etc) to be knighted, and even then, at least in theory, one had to have some nobility in one's ancestry. Conversely, in our system, anyone can (and in times past, people were forced to) serve. I didn't look at the longer list, but seeing LBJ and Carter on the list shows me that military service does not make or break a candidate's ability to lead. I would want the secdef and service secretaries to have actually served, preferably in active roles as opposed to just driving a desk. I do agree that the services do teach discipline, and that's a positive characteristic I want to see, but I don't think one needs the military to teach that, just that SOMEone should have taught it to them before we elect them.

Full disclosure: I did not serve in the military, and was too old to do so before I realized what an idiot I'd been not to sign up.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thor]

24 years in the military, going on 15 working for the puzzle palace. There are Richard craniums in every walk of life who I wouldn't want to be president. I know one particular retired Col. who's all in on O and Oscare. For that and a lot of other reasons professional and personal I wouldn't want him to park my car let alone be president. There are other mitigating factors.

While I think generally it is good experience to have it does not mean they came away with the right impressions or life experiences. Obviously, there are a lot of other important things to consider. So while I would consider it to be a plus I'll wait and see what comes out of their pie hole before taking a step towards the voting booth in their support.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Good arguments both for and against. I was in the military, And although I feel I am one thousand time more qualified than the current. I am not at all qualified to even consider a run for office. Military service or lack thereof is no litmus test for honor , military understanding , or fitness to serve as POTUS. I will cast my lot with those against military service being a requirement to be POTUS. Semper Fi!

 

[hopper68]

If military service is a requirement and you can control who gets promoted you can steer who the candidates are for upcoming elections.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not sure I follow this thinking, Dave. In the nobility, specifically knighthood, one had to be specifically chosen by those of royal blood (divine right of kings, etc) to be knighted, and even then, at least in theory, one had to have some nobility in one's ancestry. Conversely, in our system, anyone can (and in times past, people were forced to) serve.

Bill, those royal bloodlines of which you speak were almost always birthed in arms. It isn't like a bee hive in which the nannies feed a pupa royal jelly and, viola, you get a queen. In fact, this is a key part of my rationale for being as concerned as I am about the contemporary shift in law enforcement in which LE appears well on the way to being the senior partner in our society.

 

[Fargo]

And as others said, it was "Federal service", not specifically military. I have to wonder (I didn't read the book, I know I need to) if it specified federal because there were no other governments. In the movie, Rico was from Buenos Aires, but served alongside everyone else, so "federal" may have meant "world gov't", it would seem. I have to wonder if, to use my own example, being a medic, perhaps even not governmentally employed, would qualify me for citizenship.



I'd go a step farther (and I've not really thought this through, but it sounds good on the surface) and say that one must either be a wage earner or retired from a position where he was one, to vote or be involved in gov't. I might be persuaded that a small business owner would qualify. This, I think, would remove the "big money" and corporately owned politicians, and return gov't to the people. The saying goes that gov't still works, it just no longer works for us.



I'm not sure I follow this thinking, Dave. In the nobility, specifically knighthood, one had to be specifically chosen by those of royal blood (divine right of kings, etc) to be knighted, and even then, at least in theory, one had to have some nobility in one's ancestry. Conversely, in our system, anyone can (and in times past, people were forced to) serve. I didn't look at the longer list, but seeing LBJ and Carter on the list shows me that military service does not make or break a candidate's ability to lead. I would want the secdef and service secretaries to have actually served, preferably in active roles as opposed to just driving a desk. I do agree that the services do teach discipline, and that's a positive characteristic I want to see, but I don't think one needs the military to teach that, just that SOMEone should have taught it to them before we elect them.

Full disclosure: I did not serve in the military, and was too old to do so before I realized what an idiot I'd been not to sign up.

Blessings,
Bill

Minor quibble Bill but many (including myself) have been rejected for military service based upon medical conditions. The USMC didn't have an interest in someone who was already half deaf...

 

[MohawkSlim]

No.

Requirements for President area already established. If the framers thought it was important they would've included it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Minor quibble Bill but many (including myself) have been rejected for military service based upon medical conditions. The USMC didn't have an interest in someone who was already half deaf...

Which points to other areas of service as being acceptable. Not really germane to this specific thread (which is asking about military service,) but related, in the sense of "have you served the country or even just your community in some way that wasn't primarily self-aggrandizing?"

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, those royal bloodlines of which you speak were almost always birthed in arms. It isn't like a bee hive in which the nannies feed a pupa royal jelly and, viola, you get a queen. In fact, this is a key part of my rationale for being as concerned as I am about the contemporary shift in law enforcement in which LE appears well on the way to being the senior partner in our society.

I get that, and it speaks pretty directly to what I'm saying. In the royal bloodlines, anyone born to that family was (and still is) considered "a royal". If you were a peasant, you had literally no chance to ascend to leadership within the framework. You might, if you did something extraordinarily heroic (say, at great personal risk, saved the infant prince from a charging bull or something) earn the thanks of the queen and a distant cousin who was royal somehow be miraculously "found" (wink wink, nudge nudge), and this result in you taking a knee to be dubbed Sir Loin of Beef or some such, but that chance is so remote as to not even be worth considering.

Conversely, you could enter the service as a buck private, comport yourself with distinction, advance through ranks/earn a degree, and find yourself sent to OCS, though the thread focuses on military service as a requirement, not specifically high rank. If you served honorably, rank notwithstanding, I would consider that a mark in your favor in a run for the Oval Office.

Further, your concerns about LE are far from yours alone. This also speaks to my view, in that a beat cop is hardly considered royalty, but can work his way to chief or sheriff (or both, depending on political connections, etc.) Several past mayors in nearby Lafayette (and the present mayors of both Lafayette and West Lafayette) are former LE. As long as they remember where they came from, I don't see that being problematic, but the problem arises when they forget that and draw the us vs. them line, thinking themselves above the law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GIJEW]

That problem isn't limited to the hypothetical mayor/former LEO forgetting that he was just an ordinary joe first. Rather, it's that the politicians (the professional ruling class) are turning LEOs into something like feudal japan's warrior class ("and don't any of you peas...civilians touch any weapons, those are reserved for the militia")



[Further, your concerns about LE are far from yours alone. This also speaks to my view, in that a beat cop is hardly considered royalty, but can work his way to chief or sheriff (or both, depending on political connections, etc.) Several past mayors in nearby Lafayette (and the present mayors of both Lafayette and West Lafayette) are former LE. As long as they remember where they came from, I don't see that being problematic, but the problem arises when they forget that and draw the us vs. them line, thinking themselves above the law.

Blessings,
Bill[/QUOTE]

 

[Sling10mm]

I voted "no" as this would seem to be a very shallow requirement to impose. So what rank is eligible? Would someone with experience as a private or specialist have the same capabilities to direct the military as say a colonel or general, or really that much more relative to a civilian? What percentage of the population would you be excluding by imposing this requirement? What about people, who through no fault of their own, aren't able to serve due to physical limitation?

"No sir, I don't like it."

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Military teaches discipline and gives structure to one's life, something many people and politicians lack.
If your are going to be Commander and Chief of the Military you must know something about it.
It's obvious that the Democrats have a distane for the Military, it shows in their action's.

I agree the military teaches discipline, but the office of president isn't solely a military position. Furthermore, the military routinely excludes applicants for a variety of reasons. Are we to discriminate against those who can't serve due to physical limitations, which makes them unfit for military service? The limiting of potential candidates for the office of the president should be distasteful to all American. One does not need to have had military service to prove their love for the nation.
One other thing. Is there a certain rank that would be the cutoff? Or does simply serving matter? I mean, what makes a former corporal more acceptable than say a 20 year office director of the FBI who never served?

 

[Lee11b]

I think the POTUS should be born and RAISED in the United States....a couple months in Hawaii with your foreign father doesn't count.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the POTUS should be born and RAISED in the United States....a couple months in Hawaii with your foreign father doesn't count.

Not a Ted Cruz fan, 'eh?

 

[Lee11b]

No Ted is ok, it's the one who got elected, had to wait forever to see the birth certificate, only time spent in America was with his father in Hawaii, when he was around 12, then coming back to America to go to college. Growing up in Indonesia is not exactly American ideals and values.

 

[BogWalker]

No Ted is ok, it's the one who got elected, had to wait forever to see the birth certificate, only time spent in America was with his father in Hawaii, when he was around 12, then coming back to America to go to college. Growing up in Indonesia is not exactly American ideals and values.

As long as his mother was a US citizen all else is moot.