Should we allow a former-president's immidiate family members to become president?

[NeedleCast]

I generally support anything that gives free choice to the people, but I gotta admit that this whole "Presidential Dynsasty" thing scares the crap out of me. Part of me says the people should be free to vote for whoever they hell they want to vote for and the other part fears we're essentially setting up a monarchy. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-(Clinton)...

So how would you feel about not allowing the spouses and children of former presidents to run for president? Lets assume this is a hypotheical and can be easily inacted.

[Initech]

1. After 8 years of living under Junior, hell no!

[book_worm]

2. well then we eliminate bobby Kennedy or Ted Kennedy because JFK already was president.

So under this idea then Bobby shouldn't have run in '68 and Teddy shouldn't have run in '80. Unless you think that it's okay because there are some years between terms? but then Bush Jr wasn't made president until 8 years after poppy and Hillary,if she is nominated and wins, wouldn't be president until 8 years after Bill.

[cgrindley]

20. No, of course not, this is a Hillary bashing thread (nt)

[Kucinich4America]

22. Unfortunately, Bobby Kennedy WAS eliminated

And the same would probably happen to any other Kennedy who ran for President, which is why none have tried lately. Some conspiracy theories have suggested that JFK jr had Presidential ambitions, and they took him out early.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Ted Kennedy is still alive and kicking after running for President

Anyone remember 1980?

[Richard Steele]

3. Mmmm...tacos.....

[NeedleCast]

11. I figured Tacos would do well in this poll

[Gman]

4. Why would you deny any qualified person the right

to run for president or any other office simply because of the reasons you state (qualified and W notwithstanding)? This goes against everything our form of government stands for.

The best way to disqualify someone for an office is to not vote for them. I don't know why the so-called "dynasty" thing would even begin to scare you. That's our form of government.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. More importantly, why would you deny voters the right to make that choice?

[NeedleCast]

10. I don't know how a presidential dynasty DOESN'T scare people

I remember something about a whole big war to get out from under a monarchy. Putting the same two families in charge of the country 20 years now doesn't seem to have done good things for the country as a whole. It was certainly better under the Dems though, I'll grant you that. That's why I say I'm torn on this subject. These two familes have enough children to provide presidential candidates for the forseeable future. Jeb in 2020? Chelsea in 2024? Frightening. I know it's a bit of a straw man, but it still worries me.

[EstimatedProphet]

19. Ever hear of John Adams? How about John Quincy Adams?

How is that not a dynasty?

[NeedleCast]

31. Why do you have you have your hackles up over this?

Yes, I've heard of John and John Quincy Adams. Your being a smartass aside, they don't fit the criteria of immidiate family (spouse or child of a former presdient). Strangely, JQA becoming president as a grandson of John Adams doesn't bother me as much. Don't know if I can really explain why though.

[mondo joe]

35. JQA wasn't JA's grandson - he was JA's son.

Maybe it doesn't bother you because he's not Hillary.

[NeedleCast]

38. Why do you think I don't like Hillary?

900 something posts and I've never once bashed Hillary (or any candidate) to my knowledge. Hillary supporters here might want to step back and get a little prespective. Believe it or not, the world (and this poll) do not revolve around her.

FYI, If she's our candidate, I'll vote for her.

[mondo joe]

41. I'm just pro-Democracy. If the electorate wants to vote for a family member, that's

their choice, IMO.

[Gman]

44. This poll revolves directly around Hillary

otherwise, why post it?

[NeedleCast]

48. Because I'm curious?

Because this is one of the few presidential elections in our history that it applies to? Because, as I explained in the OP, the same two houses spending two decades or more in the white house worries me to some extent?

Seriously, some of you read far to much into a thing. It's like you're grasping to find Hillary bashers so you can fight with them.

[EstimatedProphet]

43. I guess, maybe it's because I've seen people go down this road before

and I know where they've always taken it. If you're indeed seriously questioning the issue, I'd say it's not denied under the Conststution and that's the way I like it.

[NeedleCast]

45. Sometimes a Poll is just a Poll

If I were one of the usual candidate-bashing people around here, I would understand your reaction a little better, but I don't think I've even indicated who I support (and probably wont, simply to avoid this sort of thing). Yes, I'm seriously questioning the issue here and after thinking about it and reading some of the posts here I'm pretty much with you...I don't like it, but it is constitutional.

The results so far kinda surprise me though.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. OK. Works for me.

:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. How would Sirhan Sirhan vote in this poll?

[Kucinich4America]

24. However the CIA programmed him to vote, probably

What does that patsy have to do with this?

[ShockediSay]

7. Mark my words, Laura Bush for President nt

[MrCoffee]

8. let's just assume that this is stupid

i vote tacos.

[NMDemDist2]

9. the Adams were Presidents 2 and 4 IIRC

it's not a big deal IMO

[RiverStone]

12. It's not about Hillary winning, it's about the Clintons winning....

I got dissed a bit regarding my same concern (in another thread) that Bill's motivation for a Hillary victory was as much about his return to the White House, as hers.

I doubt we could ever create a law against it, though something about a husband/wife team of presidents seems way to "all in the family" for this voter. I'm sure the founders of our political system never for a second envisioned this as a possibility.

[aikoaiko]

16. John Adams, John Quincy Adams (immediate family members in the WH from the beginning) ntt

[mondo joe]

36. The Founders never envisioned the possibility of family members running

for the same office? How dumb do you think they were?

[mcscajun]

13. I feel about such a limit the same way I feel about term limits.

I'm against it.

We've had a bit of this in our history, and I trust this won't become a monarchy.

President John Adams begat a son who became President, John Quincy Adams.

President Wm. Henry Harrison's grandson Benjamin became President Harrison.

President Theodore Roosevelt's fifth cousin, FDR, became one of our greatest Presidents.

Limiting opportunity isn't what this country is about, IMHO.

[NeedleCast]

17. Second two dont really fit the profile

as they are not immidiate family (spouse, child) but I feel ya.

[IndianaJones]

14. perhaps the problem isn't the same families but....white men? nt.

[Kucinich4America]

27. If (GOD forbid) the White WOMAN gets nominated this time

It's still a dynasty.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. WTF?!?

this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this site - so now Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because Bill was president?!?

I may not support Hillary but I'll be damned if I'll support her being denied the right to run on a whim! You'll do anything to see her not run, won't you?

[NeedleCast]

18. That's not really what I said though, is it?

so now Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because Bill was president?!?

Please point out where I said or supported what you typed.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. That's exactly what the suggestion is

Poll question: Should we allow a former-president's immidiate family members to become president?

It IS allowed under the Constitution. The fact that you're putting up a poll asking whether it should be allowed states that you think Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because Bill was president.

[NeedleCast]

26. That may be how you're reading it

It's not intended that way. As I pretty plainly pointed out, I have mixed feelings on this issue. It's why I asked the question and posted the poll.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. Alright then. If you indeed have mixed feelings:

The Constitution makes no claim that the office of President can only be held by people not immediately related to previous officeholders. Therefore, I vote that it should be allowed.

[dysfunctional press]

21. your poll question is rather confusing...

"So how would you feel about not allowing the spouses and children of former presidents to run for president? Lets assume this is a hypotheical and can be easily inacted."

so- would a "yes" vote mean that it should be enacted, and they should NOT be allowed to run?

and a "no" vote means that such a policy should NOT be enacted and they SHOULD be allowed to run?

or the other way around?

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

28. Clarification

Yes vote means you're okay with spouses and children of former presidents running. No means you think it shouldn't be allowed.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Why do you hate Bobby Kennedy?

I think RFK would've been a wonderful President.

[NoPasaran]

30. What about a Constitutional Amendment

What about a Constitutional Amendment that would require anyone posting a poll on DU to use the spell check?

[NeedleCast]

33. I'll make sure I give myself the appropriate 20 lashes

for misspellings.

[mondo joe]

32. Anything else is anti-Democratic. It's up to the people to choose, even if they choose

immediate family members of past presidents.

[pitohui]

34. funny how when it's a male relative it's okay, it's only women who are such a threat

as others point out, it's okay when it's the kennedys, it's okay when it's the bushes

but suddenly a woman will be able to use her name to get access to power and now it ain't okay

a dynasty is an entire family clan, such as the bushes or kennedys, there is no such clan possible with bill clinton's family, so this is targeted ONLY to try to stop his wife

[Didereaux]

37. the Harrisons...and if you want to limit then next lets prohibit any DU poster and and and and

[dysfunctional press]

39. i would say that yes it's okay, but i wouldn't necessarily say that i have no problem with it.

under our system of government, we allow anyone born here and over 35 to run for president- i may not LIKE political dynasties, but under the system we have, i also don't think that further restrictions should be put on who can run.

[NeedleCast]

42. Yeah

The more I think about this, what you posted is pretty much where I'm at.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. What if they get divorced?

:shrug:

[Perry Logan]

49. Just because the Republicans screwed up is no reason to screw things up for ourselves.

[rucky]

50. You mean like a law?

naw. we should have enough common sense. you'd think, but...

[LanternWaste]

51. I can't imagine one valid reason...

I can't imagine one valid reason as to why the blood/lineage of an American citizen should disqualify them from any office. It hints towards exclusion at best.

Additionally, how does one define the precise and relevant blood proximity? Do we madate DNA tests for candidates?

Also, you mentioned children and spouses, but your basic premise implies all members of the immediate family. If that is indeed the case, how does one argue against Bobby Kennedy having run for office? "He was qualified, the best man for the job, he would have led our country into a great age. But his brother was President, so screw him.."

All other things being fair and equal, if the American people do not want a "dynasty", wouldn't we say that precisely through our vote?

'Monarchy' is simply not a relevant term in the context of a voting populace

[comradebillyboy]

52. I do belive it is allowed by our constitution

our constitution nowadays allows women to vote and hold public office in the United States. Somebody tell Fred Thompson.

[ecstatic]

53. Spouses are not blood related. Would it be better if Hillary divorced Bill?

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

57. I wish she would have done it a long time ago. nt

[onenote]

54. how about siblings. cousins. grandchildren

Hey, if we're drawing arbitrary lines, let's draw lots of them.

And what would this law say about the following situation: President is elected, serves term. Spouse dies. New president elected. After getting elected, spouse dies. THen, while in office, current president and former president decide to get married. WOuld the law bar them from getting married unless the current president resigned? What if they put off getting married and decided to live together.

[NeedleCast]

58. Poll was pretty specific

Immidate family. Spouses and children.

[onenote]

62. seems pretty arbitrary

what is the basis for not allowing someone whose father (or mother) was president to run for president but allowing an unlimited number of their grandchildren to run for president.

[NeedleCast]

63. None

But there are only so many choiced you can set in a poll, and I wanted to make sure I had room to get Tacos in there. They are performing quite well.

[onenote]

64. yep. Tacos are good.

But why not burritos.

[NeedleCast]

65. Next time

I support all Mexican food. This poll is not ment to suggest that tacos are better than burritos.

;-)

[Bitwit1234]

55. Well I guess that would have let out John Q Adams

George H. W. Bush his wifes cousin Franklin Pierce
George W. Bush mother's cousin...

And since Hillary and Bill are only related by marriage and you are pissed off about that...we surely can include GHWB and GWB.

That's just off the top of my head I am sure I can find relationship among the others....

And there is a rumor that Nixon and George Washington were related. There's another one..

And since Obama and Cheney are 11th cousins that lets him out also...golly maybe we will have to start over and have all new candidates.

[NeedleCast]

61. Wow...just...wow

And since Hillary and Bill are only related by marriage and you are pissed off about that

I am? Why? Where did I say that? Again, the poll was pretty clear...spouses and children...I didn't even say how I'd vote and honestly, while I don't like it, it's constitutional. You win the award for arguing the most points I'm not making though.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. You'd have to change the Constitution

Besides, we might miss out on some great candidates by doing that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. Yes. The Constitution doesn't forbid it. n/t

[onenote]

60. Benazir Bhutto

Daughter of former president. For those voting that US law should not allow children to run for president, were you opposed to Bhutto's running in Pakistan?

[Thothmes]

66. As long

as the individual meets the minimum Constitutional requirements for the Office of President, I see no problem with immediate family members becoming president. If this prohibition was enacted, Bobby could not have run.