PDA

View Full Version : Constitution Test for Government Officials




Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 03:28 PM
Should all candidates for elected and appointed office, in which the oath of office is taken, be required to study and pass a competency exam on the Constitution?

If not yes, please explain your answer.

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 03:33 PM
"The poll question didn't give enough byte space for a more detailed question. By candidates, I mean all candidates for elected AND appointed office in which the Oath of Office is taken."

Please ignore. I didn't realize my first reply had been posted.

freedom-maniac
04-11-2008, 03:38 PM
No. I believe it will just be sort of like the literacy tests in the South that kept blacks from voting. Sure this sounds great, but I bet it will be used to keep down third parties and people with different ideas, just like the literacy tests did to minorities and poor whites.

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 03:41 PM
Cast your vote!

I'm withholding mine until at least 3 people have voted.

Kotin
04-11-2008, 03:48 PM
take it a step further and do it with their legislation too.

Nate SY
04-11-2008, 04:26 PM
No... We're supposed to be about freedom. And I believe people should have the right to run for office if they wish to. Sure it sounds nice but really, it's another restriction on freedom.

EDIT: Forgot to add that I do think there should be a VOLUNTARY test. And I think it should be public knowledge who is willing to take the test, and who passes or fails that test. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND I think Dr. Paul should write the test. Just to be safe.

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 04:27 PM
No. I believe it will just be sort of like the literacy tests in the South that kept blacks from voting. Sure this sounds great, but I bet it will be used to keep down third parties and people with different ideas, just like the literacy tests did to minorities and poor whites.

Think about this. You are running for President, Senate or Congress, or you are going to be appointed to serve as a ranking officer in the military. You are sworn to uphold an oath to defend the Consitution. Doesn't it make sense that you should be able to demonstrate that you understand the Constitution, the very thing you are being sworn to protect and uphold?

Holding these offices is a privilege and yes, I think the qualifications for that privilege should include that the candidate understands it.

And yes, I think we should exclude those who aren't literate in the Constitution from candidacy.

I don't see this as being fair and inclusive for all those who want to hold office. It's supposed to be fair and inclusive for everyone who's going to have to live with a person serving as President.

Nate SY
04-11-2008, 04:29 PM
Broadlighter, refer to the edit I just added in. lol, I think you were responding before I said that. I don't think it should be required, but that it should be voluntary and the results open to the public/

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 04:37 PM
Broadlighter, refer to the edit I just added in. lol, I think you were responding before I said that. I don't think it should be required, but that it should be voluntary and the results open to the public/


Thanks Nate, LOL!

freedom-maniac
04-11-2008, 04:42 PM
Think about this. You are running for President, Senate or Congress, or you are going to be appointed to serve as a ranking officer in the military. You are sworn to uphold an oath to defend the Consitution. Doesn't it make sense that you should be able to demonstrate that you understand the Constitution, the very thing you are being sworn to protect and uphold?

Holding these offices is a privilege and yes, I think the qualifications for that privilege should include that the candidate understands it.

And yes, I think we should exclude those who aren't literate in the Constitution from candidacy.

I don't see this as being fair and inclusive for all those who want to hold office. It's supposed to be fair and inclusive for everyone who's going to have to live with a person serving as President.

So what happens if they fail, yet still recieve a majority of the vote? What happens then? This law will soon come into conflict with the Constituion. It is clearly Unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution places requirements for people running for President and Congress, such as age, residency, time in the U.S., but it does not require them to know the Constitution.

AJ Antimony
04-11-2008, 04:45 PM
No. If this is truly a representative democracy, then it's up to the people to elect representatives who will obey the Constitution.

Plus this does nothing. Politicians know the Constitution anyway. There isn't a man in Congress who doesn't know the Constitution. Plus, they lie when they take their oaths, so you can bet they'd study to pass this test and then keep ignoring the Constitution.

Elect representatives who will obey the Constitution, that's the only way it will work.

freedom-maniac
04-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Agreed to the fulllest AJ Antiomy!

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 05:11 PM
No. If this is truly a representative democracy, then it's up to the people to elect representatives who will obey the Constitution.

Plus this does nothing. Politicians know the Constitution anyway. There isn't a man in Congress who doesn't know the Constitution. Plus, they lie when they take their oaths, so you can bet they'd study to pass this test and then keep ignoring the Constitution.

Elect representatives who will obey the Constitution, that's the only way it will work.

First of all, the U.S. is not a democracy. Yes we have representative government, but the powers invested in it have checks and balances built in. It is a federal constitutional republic. The Founders took great pains to ensure that we not have democracy. It's just been within the last 100 years that our government and elections have been trending toward democracy and now our educatoinal systems teach us that we are a democracy. This is a lie that we need to rid ourselves of.

Actions by politicians indicate that they either do not understand their constitutional duties or they are deliberately ignoring them. I think it is a combination of both. I believe that if all of them understood the Constitution, they would have voted for a declaration of war against Iraq. They would not have voted in the Patriot Act, either. They would also take Dr. Paul's proposed legislation with more than a grain of salt.

Government service is a privilege, not a right. When someone decides to run for office, he steps outside the status of "We the People" to ask permission to serve the public. Requiring Constitutional literacy and competency of our government officials is one way we as people can assume more control of our government. Is it a guarantee that they will honor their oaths? No, but it does hold their feet to the fire before they get so involved in the day-to-day politicking, so they'll know it can happen again very easily.

amy31416
04-11-2008, 05:28 PM
I think it's up to us to ensure that everyone we vote for or elect is well-versed in the Constitution. I can't see it as being mandatory, but if we come up with something and the person is willing to be grilled on the Constitution, that's fine.

I don't necessarily think a written test is the most appropriate, but on a local level at town meetings, etc. we should take responsibility in asking potential candidates for any office the right questions.

rockandrollsouls
04-11-2008, 05:56 PM
No...the constitution doesn't tell you to take a constitution test...it just says to uphold the constitution, and if they don't you kick them out of office. That's the problem, no one has the 'nads to kick out the weak officials today. If they violate their oath they should be out of there, and that's the problem we are having. They violate the oath, and we the people don't revoke their privileges. "You know better than us...keep doing what you're doing and we'll hope you're right"

Broadlighter
04-11-2008, 06:45 PM
I'm not entirely against a voluntary test - a well publicized one.