I think this question reflects a problem in the system.
Based on qualifications, Representatives and Senators (and Governors) are natural candidates for President. They are the ones involved in attempting to solve the major problems facing the country. (Whether or not you like those proposed solutions is, of course, another issue.)
The problem is that we have such a long drawn out process for choosing our presidential candidates (and ultimately choosing the President.) In other democracies, there is a very short process for choosing a party's candidate for chief executive (normally 2-4 months between the time that a leader states that they are not running for another term and the selection of the replacement). Likewise, while there is a lengthy pre-campaign after the selection of the leaders of the respective parties, most of the pre-campaign is fought in the day-to-day struggles over legislation with the leaders making their points for the next election with speeches with the legislature. In these countries, the actual campaign takes place during a legislative recess.
That leaves us with the nasty fact that active government officials can only run by finding a rough balance between their day-to-day official responsibilities (forcing legislators to decide what votes and hearings are important) and the necessity of campaigning outside of Washington. I think eliminating current legislators would dramatically weaken the field of potential candidates. If you applied a similar rule to current governors, the field would be even further weakened.
Under those circumstances, I think the choice rightly belongs to the voters who elected that individual to Congress. If they think that they have been ill-served by a Representative who spent so much time on the campaign trail, they can find a new one.
2007-08-01 13:50:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure why not. I don't think he or she should be allowed to run for both the Presidency and Congress at the same time. That does happen
2007-08-01 11:47:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by 1st Buzie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, as long as they stay in Washington and do their job. Stay off the campaign trail. Do a few debates, that's it.
2007-08-01 11:50:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Without a amendment to the constitution it is a moot point.
2007-08-01 11:41:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by davidmi711 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it causes them to be unable to do the job that they are already being paid for, then no...
2007-08-01 11:41:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by lc 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, as they are still getting paid for a job they not doing while campaigning
2007-08-01 11:47:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by booger0819 3
·
0⤊
0⤋