With the Clintons and the Bushes it seems we have become a democratic monarchy. Spouses, siblings ( sorry Jeb ) and first generation descendents should not be able to hold the same political office.
2007-01-25 06:38:41 · 20 answers · asked by Robert R 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Don't forget the Kennedy's.....
Jack, Robert, and Teddy....
2007-01-25 06:44:11 · answer #1 · answered by Texan 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I too am fed up with the Bush/Clinton/Kennedy/Udall dynasties and others like them, but a constitutional amendment is not the answer. John Adams and John Q. Adams were both good presidents. Better than any we have had in the past 40 years or so. Why should a constitutional amendment have prevented them from serving?
The voters could ditch the family dynasties any time they feel like it by kicking them to the curb at the polls. And that would be easier and faster than passing a constitutional amendment, if only the people had enough sense to do it.
2007-01-25 06:47:11 · answer #2 · answered by chimpus_incompetus 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we're going to ban same-sex marriage let's ban divorce too? The last study from the Netherlands regarding the divorce rate among Gays there where same sex marriage has been legal for quite a while showed their divorce rate 1/4 that of the Bible Belt in America. What we should do is outlaw opposite sex marriage instead. LOL.
2016-05-23 22:59:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Our history has many examples of strong and influential political families: the Presidents John and John Q Adams, William H. and Benjamin Harrison, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. My links give even more examples of the many interrelated politicians. Although the second President Bush has been disappointing, many of the other political relationships have benefited from the experience.
2007-01-25 08:38:47 · answer #4 · answered by AmyU 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Franklin Roosevelt would never have been president. He got us out of the depression and led a country that was in no shape to fight a war when he took over to victory in WW2.
Robert Kennedy, had he lived, would probably have been the best president in history.
These people STILL have to be elected, if you don't like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, whoever, you do not have to vote for them.
2007-01-25 06:47:30 · answer #5 · answered by clueless_nerd 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't believe just because one spouse, sibling or other family memeber has served the others should be banned.
2007-01-25 21:10:49 · answer #6 · answered by milwaukiedave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ahem, Kennedy? Did you forget them? I think that's a stupid rule, I don't see how it applies to being qualified to run for office. Suppose a family is good at being political? Why disqualify their candidates?
2007-01-25 06:43:57 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, The people of the body that the positions governs over should be allowed to elect anyone they want
2007-01-25 06:43:43 · answer #8 · answered by aj_reel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
American politics has certainly become dynastic. Maybe this would help stop the slowly emerging Ameristocracy.
2007-01-25 07:04:49 · answer #9 · answered by Year of the Monkey 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
any reason why not? Are the American people not intelligent enough to choose who should hold office? Alright, you don't have to answer that question! LOL
2007-01-25 06:47:50 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only with the last name Clinton.
2007-01-25 06:44:34 · answer #11 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋