Quote:
Originally Posted by KDAngel
While I appreciate your point, I again would like to point out that the only duty that a President is constitutionally bound to is that of Commander-in-Chief. Our forefathers realized that task as a keystone of the President's responsibility to our country and the world, and thus was sure to put it in.
Now I think other things are important as well, we should not be so short-sighted to turn our backs on the Constitution or the history of the country.
|
I'm not suggesting the president's "Commander in Chief" title be removed. He/she can still be Commander in Chief and seek the professional counsel of people with much experience below him/her. Any good CEO or boss does the same. A good president also has humility.
Oh, silly me, adding in "she" and "her"...our founding fathers never expected a woman to be a serious contender for president, either! Tell me, what happens one day if a woman is a party's chosen candidate for president - though women can be in the military, they officially cannot be in combat (say what you will about women being on the front lines right now - they're not supposed to be, and the military is taking actions to correct that). Because I don't think simple military service is enough to the people who talk it up as a "must" - I think what they're really looking for is combat experience. Will military service then become a moot point, or will it become yet another reason why some people don't want a female president?
ETA: By the way, the President has many duties required of him/her in the Constitution, not just commander of the military. He/she is also Head of State and has the power to meet and form treaties with the heads of other nations, among other duties specified such as appointing other heads in the govt. and judges, and giving a state of the union address "from time to time."
Threaded Mode
