-5

If the only qualifications to be eligible for the President of the United States of America is that of:

  • Be a natural-born U.S. citizen
  • Be at least 35 years old
  • Have resided in the U.S. at least 14 years

Question

Is there anything the American people can do "right now" to help ensure stricter rules of eligibility are put in place in addition to this criteria for someone wanting to run for POTUS?

  • Seems the current criteria alone isn't really enough to ensure the American democracy is not at risk for total corruption undermining the entire system.

  • We only get the choice of whoever the RNC or DNC allow to run and that strategy seems corrupted too in the sense of not being in favor of American people's best interest and rather what their parties believe is the best choice instead—we should be controlling that choice.

Why

With the great many number of unprecedented events, actions, behaviors, secretive non-disclosures and unwillingness to answer questions by Trump and his close administrative officials, it would seem to a typical voting American citizen such as myself to wonder if the entire American democracy has a loophole allowing foreign countries to manipulate our system.

You would think things such as fully disclosing all business tax and financial records to the FBI and other US government entities and going thru extensive searches at this level ensuring no conflict of interest ever could occur by such a person would be standard practice for someone wanting to run for election of commander in chief POTUS for an entire nation.

Because of non-modernized law and constitution or whatever, someone that has lots of money to hire attorneys, pay to stay highly educated, etc. has more of an advantage to be put in a position to run for such high office and a greater chance for control corruption, etc.

A millionaire or billionaire business man running as the POTUS just seems like a huge conflict of interest and such an easily and proactively solvable problem with common sense policy.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    Trump's business interests are arguably in conflict with laws of the United States for a person serving in public office. If you direct your question to that specifically, it might survive as a question. I'm also not sure what you hope to achieve by posting your comments on a question and answer site.
    – userLTK
    Dec 11, 2017 at 7:18
  • I always enjoy the assupmtion that I, who voted for Trump, am somehow been dup, faked or otherwise did not make an informed decision, simply because I don't agree with your ideals. So instead of agreeing with the results of the election, the OP is seeking someway to disenfranchise my vote. This rant is bordering on the dictionary definition of Bigotry
    – Frank Cedeno
    Dec 11, 2017 at 20:33
  • The answers to this question are incorrect. The only direct way to impose stricter rules of eligibility is to amend the constitution. Additional requirements added by statute would not be effective. See Powell v. McCormack for an analogous case concerning the House of Representatives.
    – phoog
    Dec 10, 2021 at 14:24

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Your question is actually many questions, with some statements mixed in.

Is there anything the American people can do "right now" to help ensure stricter rules of eligibility are put in place in addition to this criteria for someone wanting to run for POTUS?

Not so much, no. There was some talk (very generally) about easing the Rules so the Governator might run for President, See article here. Arnold also lobbied in 2013 to run in 2016 but after his affair, he no longer had much in the way of allies. (Too bad, I like him much better than Trump, but I digress).

There's no reason why the 35 years of age couldn't be pushed to 40, or an age limit to prevent people in their 70s from becoming president, but writing laws like that takes some doing, like congressional approval, a bill approved in both houses, signed by the Prez or passed by 2/3rds majority. It takes some doing and wouldn't guarantee your result.

Seems the current criteria alone isn't really enough to ensure the American democracy is not at risk for total corruption undermining the entire system.

Perhaps laws could be written to be more strict about international business interests and people running for office. That might be closer to what your question is asking. We could call those theoretical laws "Trump" laws and that might be possible. Anyone with international interests can't run - I actually like that. That might disqualify Hillary and her Clinton foundation (though her Hubby is the one who started it) and it would disqualify Trump. That might be the closest to an answer to your question.

We only get the choice of whoever the RNC or DNC allow to run and that strategy seems corrupted too in the sense of not being in favor of American people's best interest and rather what their parties believe is the best choice instead—we should be controlling that choice.

Lets back this up a bit. Trump considered running as an independent. The Republicans let him run as a Republican and he won. During the Primaries, he even hinted that he could run as an independent if they treated him unfairly.

And Bernie was an independent since the 1980s. He ran as a democrat, but he really wasn't a member of the DNC. That's part of why so many people liked him.

So you had a situation where an independent won the RNC and an independent came in a respectable 2nd for the DNC, and, not that long ago an independent (Ross Perot) challenged the 2 party system. It's not entirely true that we just have DNC and RNC. The race is somewhat open. Granted it's hard for an independent to win, but Trump arguably was exactly that and he won. Careful what you wish for, as so many have said.

it would seem to a typical voting American citizen such as myself to wonder if the entire American democracy has a loophole allowing foreign countries to manipulate our system.

There is a loophole. Free press and social media. Obama and the FBI knew that Russia had plans to influence the outcome of the election. Obama didn't address it publicly, perhaps he should have, but our nation is so divided along partisan lines, I'm not sure it would have done much good.

Look at it this way. The US has tried to influence who wins in other nations elections. What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander, so what Russia did, it's nothing that our nation hasn't done, but at the same time, Obama was right to reciprocate with sanctions. There has to be a response to that kind of act. It has to be taken seriously.

Now if Russia helps Trump win and Trump returns the favor to Russia, or if Trump had meetings with Russia offering stuff before the election, that should be (and in many cases is) illegal and an impeachable offense. Whether it works out that way in time, we'll have to wait and see. It's being investigated. Trump is denying accusations. Time will tell what comes of it.

You would think things such as fully disclosing all business tax and financial records to the FBI and other US government entities and going thru extensive searches at this level ensuring no conflict of interest ever could occur by such a person would be standard practice for someone wanting to run for election of commander in chief POTUS for an entire nation.

I don't know all the ins and outs, but I'm pretty sure those laws already exist. It's covered under the Emoluments Clause. Trump had to sign over control of several of his businesses to his Sons and he's required to not share or learn too much information regarding those businesses.

It's been argued that Trump has pushed that clause farther than it should be pushed and going forward, congress can pass ammendments or laws to fortify that clause and make it harder for Someone like Trump to become Prez. I'm not predicting that they will but they could.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    "Careful what you wish for" - yep, I have been on an amusement roll the first couple of podcast episodes of "Common sense with Dan Carlin" (same guy doing more famous "Hardcore History" podcast) after the election - he spent the last 20 years agitating for independents to run and against DNC/RNC corruption.... but he can't stand Trump. People rarely remember "consequences" :)
    – user4012
    Dec 11, 2017 at 14:30
  • "writing laws like that takes some doing, like congressional approval, a bill approved in both houses, signed by the Prez or passed by 2/3rds majority": a law passed through that process cannot change the qualifications for the presidency. Instead, a constitutional amendment is needed. This takes considerably more doing.
    – phoog
    Dec 10, 2021 at 14:21
1

The rules for the qualifications of the President are enshrined in the constitution. I suppose you could seek to convince law makers to pass additional laws on top of the constitutional ones.

However, as a general rule, its not possible to develop laws which exclude every candidate which someone finds objectionable. The election process is designed to elect the best candidate, not to reject the worst (whether you feel it worked out or not in any particular election year).

The best voters can do is continue to vote and make their voice heard.

Improve this answer
3
  • If the system is corrupt though, voting can be corrupt as well and if that's the case, then it doesn't matter who votes. What the people can do is what they've always been doing which doesn't work as everyone sees with the current POTUS. He claims the system is rigged, and he likely paid the people off that counted the vote ballots or explicitly had people fill in the box for his vote on the card if the entire card was filled in for entire party non-Republican.
    – The 'Bernie Sanders' Party
    Dec 11, 2017 at 14:06
  • @WhiteCastle Can you cite your source for "likely paid the people." If it were "likely," I expect those who are actively trying to remove him from the presidency to be louder about it. Regardless, if one feels the system is corrupt through and through, then one is now talking about dismantling an entire system. In such cases, Chesterton's Fence seems to be a worthwhile piece of reading material.
    – Cort Ammon
    Dec 11, 2017 at 15:24
  • "I suppose you could seek to convince law makers to pass additional laws on top of the constitutional ones": such laws would not be effective. The federal courts have held that laws purporting to add additional qualifications for membership in congress were ineffective because the qualifications are established by the constitution. Changing the qualifications requires changing the constitution. The same will be true of the qualifications for the presidency.
    – phoog
    Dec 10, 2021 at 14:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .