Considering that the individual would have such vast powers, shouldn't a psycological evaluation be conducted for the sake of our National Security?
I know that this would be against their constitutional rights but hey didn't GWB do the same in spying on us and wire tapping our homes? My point here is what if the president-elect is psychologically depressed without knowing it and has suicidal tendencies? such a state of mind can make a person think irrationally.
2006-12-16 00:05:11 · 12 answers · asked by ARMCHAIR WARRIOR 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
YES, PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST, ALSO DRUG TEST AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND TEST SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED TO ALL CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
ALSO EVERY CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE SHOULD BE CHECKED HOW MUCH WEALTH THEY HAVE AND THEN BE CHECKED AGAIN WHEN THEY LEAVE PUBLIC OFFICE. THEIR WEALTH SHOULD BE COMPARED BEFORE AND AFTER TAKING OFFICE, AND COMPARE THEIR WAGES WITH ANY SUBSTANTIAL GAINS IN THEIR WEALTH AFTER LEAVING OFFICE.
MANY POLITICIANS ARE CROOKS. WHY WOULD A PROMINENT LAWYER OR A BUISNESSMAN GIVE UP THEIR HIGHLY PAYING JOB TO TAKE UP A POSITION IN PUBLIC EYE ONLY MAKING LESS THAN $100,000?
2006-12-16 00:15:17 · answer #1 · answered by crane1951@sbcglobal.net 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is one of the jobs of the Vice President...to keep an eye on the decisions of the President, and make sure that he continues to follow his party's mandate. The same goes for all the Presidential Advisors. The Republican party doesn't want a wild card sociopath in office any more than you do.
Also, there is a chain of checks and balances in place. The President can not just order a nuclear strike against anyone. The decision has to go through a pre-selected war panel that would either allow him to do this, or not. Mostly not, thank God!
And finally, the Secret Service agents assigned as Presidential bodyguards are just that. They protect the POSITION of the Presidency, as embodied in that specific individual. NOT the individual themselves. So if a President was behaving irrationally, and his advisors, and selected cabinet were trying to force him to step down from immediate control of weapons of mass destruction, then the Secret Service would switch to protecting the Acting President (most likely the Vice President) as the head of the country, without any debate.
2006-12-16 00:38:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what if the person doing the examination is opposed to him personally? If he passed one side would say the examiner was bought off or a sympathizer, if he failed, the other side would have their own conspiracy theories.
Anyway, there was plenty of evidence that pointed to GWB not being fit to be president but he got 'elected' anyway.
2006-12-16 00:13:57 · answer #3 · answered by Peace 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You pose an interesting question. The balance of powers of our 3 branches of government are suppose to keep relative order within our government to prevent abuses or irrational behavior. Although, this really didn't pan out during this administration; I would hesitate to compromise our rights as citizens to prevent this from happening in the future. If we start removing liberties, where does it stop?
2006-12-16 01:43:08 · answer #4 · answered by swixon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amen Brother
2006-12-16 00:10:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do not evaluate myself to be any more beneficial or a lot less smart than any of a few thing of you adult men, yet there is a few thing about Obama being elected president that my ideas merely refuses to carry close. perchance it truly is because there hasn't ever been a presidential candidate a lot less qualified. perchance it truly is because his personality merely isn't equivalent to the activity. OR, perchance it truly is because I supply more beneficial credit to the collective intelligence of u . s . of america than it benefits.
2016-11-26 22:27:27 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mandatory mescaline injections for all state/federal representatives. If they can survive 400mg IV and put together a coherent foreign policy NOT involving bombing innocents for profits, I'm there.
2006-12-16 00:17:37 · answer #7 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. People have elected Actors, Muscled action figures, geeks, clowns, and creeps. Why not psychos too?
2006-12-16 01:20:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that would be great!
We have this problem with our president. He cares about everything except his job! Jews, Palestians and .... are on top of his list, but even those whose voted for him are just no one.
2006-12-16 01:36:18 · answer #9 · answered by - 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was a sociopath and a pathological liar.
He was also a coward who dodged the draft.
Under your idea, he would not been allowed to become president.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
You might just get it.
(By the way, you are NOT being wiretapped unless you are a KNOWN terrorist.)
2006-12-16 00:12:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋