A special school for U.S. representatives and the president?

1. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   Lately, it seems that our elected body has demonstrated VERY limited competence when it comes to addressing the issues of the U.S. or applying the laws of the U.S. Constitution, and since we all know there is no FORMAL training for these positions, I think it would be an excellent idea if We The People put the screws to our current incumbents to implement some kind of training, where the instructors are senior active duty military officers and non-commissioned officers. Those are the ones who know our U.S. Constitution best, and what morally and ethically sound really means.
   
   If lawyers, and doctors, have to pass a bar exam to practice their profession, our reps need to pass a training course to occupy a government office.
   
   I never thought 'Politician' was a real profession anyway.
   
   Yes, this course would be mandatory, and our reps would have to graduate with an 85 average or better.  I'm sure the War College would be more than happy to open up a few classrooms to educate our wealthy idiots in office.  If the incumbents, or candidates, refuse, they are either removed from office or disqualified to run until they pass this course. 
   
   A suggested title?  Government Office 101.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Jennifer, I think your intention is good, but it's going to backfire. Have you considered who will write the textbooks and who will grade the exams? Whoever is in power will dictate the standards by which these politicians are judged. It will make it that much harder for principled people to get elected. It will be like the indoctrinations that all representatives used to have to undergo in the Soviet Union.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Tom Cornettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Many of our politicians (to be politically correct)are morally and ethically challenged.  Often, their self righteous motives clash with the Constitution. 
      Wisdom has little to do with education. A true leader will be wise. A mediocre leader will be a wise ass.

      replyreport
2. 67

   Michael Willisposted 14 years ago

   I think anyone who runs for any elected office at a State level or Higher should have some kind of Degree in Constitutional Studies, Foreign Affairs, Finances/Accounting, Tax Laws and Speech. (Speech=how to communicate with the people, not at the people.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don't you think that the more degrees a candidate has, the less likely he is to talk with the people instead of at them?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Michael Willisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Good point. He then believes he/she is too smart for the people he/or she represents!

         replyreport
      2. 73

         livewithrichardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly! This is why our system is the way it is.  People need to quit whining and start looking in the mirror. It's you and I that put those politicians in their jobs so it's our responsibility to make sure they are qualified.

         replyreport
3. 80

   manlypoetrymanposted 14 years ago

   I still don't think they'd get it right...even if they did pass their "school" with an 85 or better!

   replyreport
4. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 14 years ago

   
   
   Aristotle and Plato covered it pretty well.  Maybe follow it up with the Federalist papers.  Wouldn't have to have anyone write anything new, since all of it has been hashed and rehashed anyway.
   
   I'll grade them. 

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Okay, Shades. And how would you deal with constitutional issues that different citizens and different Supreme Court Justices can't agree upon? Do the candidates fail if they don't give the answer you think is right?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         As long as the arguments being made were based in the principles taught in the three textbooks we had made, I would let democracy work at that point and let the bench majority work.
         
         I would add one suggestion, though.  Everything but the Constitution and Bill of Rights gets wiped every 100 years.  Clean slate.  All previous precedents go away so that a new century can start without all the crap that starts to seep in over time as one precedent starts to conflict with another. 

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yikes! There goes stare decisis. Would you do that to the common law, too?
            
            You are a radical, my friend!

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               It's not gone.  They just get to clean house.  If a new century wants to write in some new "old" rules at the start of the century based on great precedents, they can.  Plus, if a decision is that amazing and universally true on some level, the previous century will go through the process to make an ammendment of it. If it can't be made to stick like that, then it ain't that absolute of a truth and might be best to let the new century have it's own crack at the issue. 
               
               I really do understand the value of letting settled things be settled, but they start to conflict with all the nuanced versions over time, and it starts not being about each individual case in it's own context and instead about trying to stuff unique stories into this old context or that.  The system is never going to be able to take the humans out of justice.  It just starts generating really, really, really thick rule books that give sophistical lawyers more to work with besides "the truth," however relative such a thing may be.

               replyreport
5. 67

   Michael Willisposted 14 years ago

   I personally wish there was some Law that made them accountable to the people that elected them. I wrote about this in a hub and also shared parts of it with local media. Consensus is...no way there would ever be a law for that. lol The Politicians introduce the laws...they would never pass a law that made them accountable.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Here, Here...I second that, Michael.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   From Wikipedia-
   
   "Barack Obama attended Occidental College, but received his undergraduate degree in political science from Columbia University, an Ivy League member currently ranked 9th in the country by U.S. News and World Report. Obama also graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Harvard Law School, where he also served as President of the Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law School is ranked the best Law School in America.
   Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
   Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude"
   
   The President was also a Professor of "Constitutional Law" at the University of Chicago Law School, where he taught three courses from 1992 to 2004.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Uh-Oh...someone's using Wiki-Tikipedia...to derive faxtz!!!

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yep. Just goes to show that a degree, an education and all that they entail are not the answer.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Obma may have among the best educational qualifications ever for the Presidency. This is helpful, but we've had several excellent presidents, e.g., Harry Truman, who didn't go to college. Character, intelligence, values may well be more important than formal education. Truman was a great student of history as I recall. And he was a more courageous and decisive individual than many other presidents.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, good to see that we agree on this: Character, intelligence and values are much more important than education!

         replyreport
7. 67

   Michael Willisposted 14 years ago

   LOL, I remember when I was just a 4th year Apprentice in Electrical...I was supervising a pretty good size Industrial Electrical Job. One of the Journeyman Electrician I had sent to me made a 98 on the Journeyman's Test (You have no idea how amazing a score like that really is!!!!!)
   
   He was book smart, but was run off my job because he could not put into his work what He knew from the books! His excuse always was his test score and experience in the trade...well, in the trade I am in there is no excuse for work that is not safe or up to code so he was gone!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      So, there's not much point in requiring that test, is there?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Michael Willisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The test as the only source would not be a good idea. There has to be more. That is the actual point I am making here.  But some required studies could only help.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Michael Willisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Could you see Arnold Schwarzenegger as President? (Not that he could, not being born in the US), or the Wrestler that was Governor?

            replyreport
8. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   So, what is supposed to prepare our representatives to aid their own citizens in the event of a natural disaster?  Less than 2% of them have had any military training. Ray Nagin was a total waste of oxygen when Katrina and Rita hit New Orleans back in 2005. 1,400 school buses and he couldn't rally the skilled folks to drive them?  He needs to be in prison for failing to act in a time of emergency, other than whining to DC for help. Thousands of citizens died because of Mayor Nagin's incompetence!
   
   Money might talk, but, GUESS WHAT? Money can't buy off a hurricane, a flood, earthquakes, or tornados!  Explain that to the citizens who depend on you for help, representation, and guidance in the event of a disaster.  We have a bunch of idiots in office who don't know their anal cavity from jack.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Jenifer, let me not sound indifferent to your concerns but in a true capitalist state like yours, there is nothing like right or wrong. It is either fun or boredom, and in most cases nothing makes 'sense' unless it is fun! Guess what! My president suffered a heart- attack! And it was all because of a 45 minute call from Mrs Clinton- proposing to him to drop the 'anti-gay bill!'

      replyreport
9. 61

   logic,commonsenseposted 14 years ago

   I believe they all need to have a degree in common sense!
   The founders did not think that serving would become a profession.  They believed one should serve for a short time and then go home!  Citizen legislators, what a concept!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The founding fathers came up with a unique solution for term limits called 'elections'. If the people at home like the job their legislators are doing, and the legislators want to continue to serve, they get sent back.
      
      I have heard the call for term limits as a way of overriding the will of the people in elections for decades. I can't see how it makes sense to retire someone who is doing an effective job and replacing him with a rookie to improve government.
      
      If it's the 3rd inning and the pitcher has thrown 9 strikeouts in a row, why pull him from the game?

      replyreport
10. 60

    JeniferDposted 14 years ago

    YES!  You hit the nail on the head!  Ain't our fault God made these current incumbents too dumb to flip burgers, but, made them arrogant enough to think that they could run a country!  LOL!!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       WE THE PEOPLE elected these 'current incumbents' to run the country.
       
       EXCUSE the hell out of me as a voter if they havent done what YOU wanted them to do. There's an election in November and you can put up a candidate from McDonalds if you think a burger flipper they can do a better job. (I have been a burger flipper if you want to nominate me.)
       
       It's called democracy. Whoever we send is charged with the job of running the country. It's not arrogant - it's the job description.

       replyreport
11. 0

    StormRyderposted 14 years ago

    I graduated from college not too long ago and I have to say that many of the people I went to school with..medical students, law students and others who will be in positions of trust and respect...well to be honest, a lot of them were not very bright. Some got by on their families name or wealth, others were just great at taking tests or cheating their way through college. So having a degree can be deceiving. If this was a prerequisite for all of our elected officials it would spawn even more elitism...Maybe we should have more everyday people in government...people who really know what it's like to live pay check to pay check or if they can pay rent or feed their kids. Just step back and look at it without any of the republican/democrat BS...both parties suck and have no real solutions for anything but putting money in the pockets of the special interests and themselves...the people of this country are irrelevant to both parties.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       A lot of democrats but their jobs and future on the line by voting FOR a health care bill that they know ill be good for 'the people of this country". Over the decades, politicians have avoided doing something on a difficult and complex issue - which is the net result of all the GOP alternatives - and laft the problem for future Congresses.
       
       No the bill is not perfect but it's a huge step in the right direction and an act of courage from a body who has typically maintained a prudent policy of cowardace.

       replyreport
12. 63

    TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years ago

    What if instead of just politicians...everyone had to take such classes? LOL

    replyreport
    1. 83

       Aya Katzposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       There are already plenty of mandatory classes and this doesn't make the world a better place. We need fewer classes, fewer laws, fewer requirements and more freedom for each person to live his own life.

       replyreport
13. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago

    The school aimed to teach the US representatives and the President should first teach the voting public. Those who wins elections and become representatives and Presidents need no schooling. They are much wiser than the voting public, who lack discipline, and require lecture on how to behave as good citizens.

    replyreport
14. 60

    JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

    Doug Hughes
    
    THE DEMS VOTING FOR THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL put their jobs on the line for the democrat party and President Obama not for the people.
    
    The other party of whom you speak about wanted illegals and non citizens excluded from the benefits of the bill.
    The illegal cost of using government entitlements to the taxpayers and the government are about $300 billion a year.
    
    We should all wonder why the Dem's pushed the bill without excluding non citizens and illegals.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       As usual, Jon, you operate in the fact-free zone of the wingnut.
       
       "But this debate is too important to allow falsehoods to go unrebutted, so it’s time (yet again) to set the record straight:
       
       Falsehood #1: Illegal immigrants will get taxpayer benefits under the health care reform proposals under consideration.
       
       Fact: Every proposal on the table explicitly disqualifies illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits. See the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill, Section 151 and the Energy-Commerce Committee bill, Section 246. All reports from the Senate Finance Committee deliberations indicate there will be similar restrictions contained in the bill they plan to unveil.
       
       Falsehood #2: There won’t be any verification mechanisms to ensure illegal immigrants don’t receive benefits under these proposals.
       
       Fact: Some verification process will be required under a new program to enforce the explicit prohibition on benefits to undocumented immigrants. The federal government already utilizes verification mechanisms like the Department of Homeland Security-administered SAVE Program. Opponents of reform cite the defeat of the verification amendments to health care legislation during House committee markups as proof that “illegals” will benefit from health care reform. In fact, by defeating the overly restrictive amendments committee members preserved critical administrative flexibility in defining the most effective verification process."
       
       from -
       http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ … ealth.html

       replyreport
       1. 60

          JON EWALLposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          doug
          
          Shame on you calling me a wingnut. Quoting information from a activist radical progressive group explains the positions you take on political matters.
          American Progress is a radical leftist group .Referring to an article dated Sept. 09 as your response to my hub is simply inexcusable .It reminds me of house leader Pelosi stating '' we need to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it ''. WOW, sounds like a very smart person?
          The healthcare reform  bill was passed and signed into law by president Obama on 3/23/10. President Obama and the Dems who voted on the bill don't even know what is in the bill.The Dems voted on the student loan bill which was put in the Healthcare bill without a discussion or debate.
          I guess that's what  Obama meant by a transparent government.
          
          Progressive radicalism is not what America is all about,  the people need to get their country back before the progressives destroy it.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Jon ol' buddy - You tossed out an old lie and I tossed out an old rebuttal to that lie. Illegal aliens are NOT covered by Health Care Reform. They can't buy coverage through the exchanges that will be created. They won't get subsidies.
             
             As far as I am concerned, anyone who deliberately passes off information that they KNOW is untrue to support their ultra-conservative postion is a wingnut. I don't care if you attend teabagger functions or not.
             
             You can disagree with me - or the President - or any issue - on the merits.  Lie about the issues or the President (or me) and I will call you on it.  Getting caught lying repeatedly destroys your credibility when you have a legitimate postion on an issue. (It could happen - maybe.)
             
             But there is an upside - as long as you hate President  Obama, Brenda will pray for you..

             replyreport