The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the US military. The Constitution also requires that the US government, of which the President is Executive, shall preserve a republican form of governement for the US and the individual states as well as to defend the US.
Further the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution which requires the points above.
Doesn't is stand to reason that someone who is a "pacifist" or is "anti-war," who would be unwilling, morally or philosophically, to use the military isn't suited to the office and should be considered "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" per the meaning of the 25th Amendment and should be disqualified even to run?
2007-11-15 13:03:28 · 19 answers · asked by RTO Trainer 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I agree that such a person is not suited to hold the office, but I disagree that they should be disqualified for running. I think the people are smart enough to not make the wrong choice, and if they do, they deserve what they get.
2007-11-15 13:07:54 · answer #1 · answered by curtisports2 7 · 10⤊ 6⤋
definite i think of it may. this isn't any longer a question of being professional-conflict or anti- conflict, professional-militia or anti-militia. this isn't any longer even a question of ways the form is written. Being a "pacifist" or "anti-conflict" potential that a individual does not understand that there is a appropriate time to combat and look after, whether that be a rustic or merely your loved ones. i've got faith a similar element applies to those that have not got any problem or subject in any respect with conflict. i does not desire a president that would use a feather to hammer down a obdurate nail, merely like i does not desire somebody to apply sledge hammer. i've got faith the president has to settle for that conflict or perhaps militia intervention is regrettably nevertheless a necessity in our international. it particularly is possible that values of a pacifist does not see or understand that and hamper them in there presidential responsibilities, because in some circumstances the protection of our u . s . relies upon on a proactive intervention rather of merely a shielding reaction.
2016-10-02 11:15:28 · answer #2 · answered by ansell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this hypothetical person refused to take the oath of office (requiring they "protect and defend") they wouldn't become president in the first place. If they refused to protect and defend, they would likely be impeached for not upholding their oath of office.
Also, I personally think that while pacifism isn't wise, every President should be anti-war. I mean, what sane person is "pro" war? It should always be the last resort.
2007-11-15 14:04:11 · answer #3 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If one runs for the President of the United States, they should understanding that no matter their view points or personnel feelings sometimes Military Force is the only way. That is what the Military is for to defend the United States of America. If they do not have the guts, or they are Anti-War then they can not fill the Role as Commander in Chief. And alot of Anti War people are always crying about the loss of American Life in War, hello that is what happens. American Service Members (like myself) are fully aware of the dangers we are put in and accept the fact that we might die. but we are the best in America, we are willing to put our life where our mouth is and not just hide behind rights that anti-war and pacifist hide behind (freedom of speech). Look at how far the Anti-war people have gone, protesting Service Members Funerals, what right gives you the right to do that.
2007-11-15 13:28:01 · answer #4 · answered by Joshuah T 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Although the Constitution is silent about "pacifism" as a bar to the office, as voters we need to be aware that there are times which an armed response, like to Hitler, is necessary. So we shouldn't support a pacifist.
However, we like to believe that all of our presidents are "anti-war." F.D.R. told us "I hate war!" And Woodrow Wilson tried to "end" war. I don't think anyone could get elected on a "pro-war" platform.
2007-11-15 15:16:19 · answer #5 · answered by James@hbpl 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
We have had anti-war Presidents in the past. Grover Cleveland, William McKinley and Woodrow Wilson. Of the three only Cleveland was successful in keeping the USA out of war.
2007-11-15 13:27:06 · answer #6 · answered by Philip L 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be a qualification. A president should be the LAST person who wants to go to war, and would only do so under extreme provocation.
I think America has had quite enough of hair-trigger cowboys for one lifetime thank you very much.
2007-11-15 13:40:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No - that's what makes this country what it is. Even a qualififed person w/an opposing view of the public can run for presidency.
Personally, I wouldn't vote for that person.
2007-11-16 18:24:18 · answer #8 · answered by dude 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well that is up to the voters. I don't think they would ever vote for someone who is unwilling to defend the country. At least I hope not.
2007-11-15 13:43:37 · answer #9 · answered by Manbearpig 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A peson who is incapable of carrying out their oath to defend the country is not fit to lead it. Pacifism is a fine as someone's personal belief, but it should not be afflicted upon the rest of the country. These sorts of beliefs are protected by those willing to stand against people who would do violence against them. The wolfhound keeps the flock safe when the wolf come calling.
2007-11-15 13:18:59 · answer #10 · answered by sammael_coh 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Not necessarily.
You can have a mostly pacifistic standpoint, but still be perfectly capable of fulfilling the job requirements. In fact, I think it would be better than what we have, a president overly eager to go to war.
There are many who are very opposed to the war we're currently in, but who understand that the need does sometimes exist.
2007-11-15 13:10:25 · answer #11 · answered by emily_brown18 6 · 7⤊ 3⤋