(e.g.Clinton, Bush, Kennedy) were denied, by legislation, the possibility of running for President/VP?
Would you support an ammendment - to ensure this reality?
2006-09-07 01:35:41 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Bobby D asks - 'what would the purpose be' - the main one that I consider, just now?
The Bush situation - son carrying on father's 'uncompleted' agenda;
then - Clinton - wife riding on husbands' popularity coat tails,
similar to what MIGHT have happened with the Kennedy brothers. . .
2006-09-07 02:07:43 · update #1
In a second flat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-09-07 01:37:45 · answer #1 · answered by alfonso 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No I wouldn't support such an amendment.
Frankly, I don't like either side of the coin. But, I am precluded from doing many things I enjoy because someone some where committed a crime while in pursuit of one of these past times. The Government/people have no interest in controlling abuse or crime. They only want to control the means of committing that abuse. It is a very weak kneed attempt at appearing to be "tough on crime". I can't see how preventing one person from holding an elected office just because someone else in the family has held it could possibly do anything to help the country. It seems that such an effort would be similar to hanging the great great grandson of John W. Booth. I realize the comparison goes a bit far of field but I chose an absurd example only to illustrate where such an amendment could take us.
We, the people and the people we have elected, have had three clear opportunities to remove bad Presidents. Once the man was allowed to resign and the other two the Senate FAILED to do their job. We have people who have killed teenagers waiting thirty years for execution. Recently a man was released in Southern California after doing 16 years for murder. His sentence had been Life without Parole. A burglar in San Francisco sued and won the townhouse he was attempting to rob when the home owner chased him from the house and the burglar was hurt during the chase. And, don't forget the woman with the McDonald's coffee. Judges, juries, and executioners routinely let us down. This sort of thing goes on hourly. People are not held accountable for their actions, but others are. Guilt by association is unfair and unreasonable. Targeting you for something I do may appeal to me but I doubt you would consider it fair.
Don't buy into this prior restraint philosophy. It is already virtually impossible to buy a gun legally in most states, your vehicle has a chip that records what you do with your car, and it won't be long until your car will be incapable of exceeding the speed limit, even in an emergency. Please be careful, be very careful what you wish for. The cascade effect can be crippling.
I'm available through my profile and would like to hear what you think about my comments. Honestly, I would love to find a way to preclude bad office seekers from reaching office but the definition of bad, in this instance, is a very subjective one. Looking forward to hearing from you. Have a good day.
2006-09-07 12:00:26 · answer #2 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because we are dedicated to the concept that each man should be judged on his own merits, this would be antithetical, wouldn't it?
Too bad, but we can't exclude anyone from trying.
2006-09-07 08:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by silvercomet 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
thats really not fair. dont let one bad incident ruin it for everyone!
2006-09-07 08:41:59 · answer #4 · answered by moondancer629 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. What would the purpose be?
2006-09-07 09:00:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That would not be fair.
2006-09-07 08:37:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋