Banning Senators from the Presidency
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit presented an interesting Constitutional amendment in his column this morning:
Any person, having been elected to the office of United States senator, shall be forever ineligible to be elected to the office of president of the United States. The purpose of this amendment isn't so much to protect the presidency, as to protect the Senate. Very few senators ever become president, but of the 100 people serving in the Senate at any given time, probably about 95 think they've got a shot. This causes them to treat their Senate service as a potential steppingstone, rather than an end in itself. Ban senators from higher office and you encourage them to focus on their jobs. Plus, a Senate that couldn't serve as a steppingstone might attract a better caliber of senator.
Let's approach this from a theoretical standpoint, not necessarily as a realistic possibility. Would this really "attract a better caliber of senator" in the sense of embodying what a pure Senator should be rather than someone looking at their responsibilities as a body of work towards the Oval Office? I'm not sure that it would, but I do see potential to Reynolds' thinking.
What do we think?
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Banning Senators from the Presidency
It robs the voters of their right of choice. I am not for it.
Besides, I don't think it has been that big a problem.
May '10
Re: Banning Senators from the Presidency
Let's see, remind me again the typical way that constitutional amendments get passed . . . what's that? . . . both houses of congress approve it, then it gets passed on to the states? So, to get this passed, we'd have to get a super-majority of senators to approve it?
Uh-oh.
Apr '11
Re: Banning Senators from the Presidency