Who, by your reckoning, IS qualified? What makes him/her qualified?
This morning I was considering the various candidates’ resumes. On paper, Kasich is really well qualified: Governor of a big (swing) state, former Chairman of the House Budged Committee. But do I want him sitting in the Oval Office? Apparently the NYT does.
Huckabee, Gilmore and Bush completed their terms as governor of their states, so they have that executive experience going for them. Whether their records warrant moving up to the White House is another question.
Both Cruz and Rubio are in their FIRST TERM in the U.S. Senate. Just like Obama. They’ve been running for POTUS since they arrived in DC. Or before, actually. What has either actually accomplished in the U.S. Senate?
iIck Santorum served 2 terms in the U.S. House of Reps and 2 in the U.S. Senate before being defeated in an unusually strong Democrat election cycle.
Hillary was re-elected to the U.S. Senate, where she accomplished little, then left to assume SoS, as another stepping stone to the White House.
Bernie Sanders was reelected to the U.S. Senate. He would not finish out his term if elected. Not too sure what he’s actually accomplished in the Senate, except to caucus with the Dems to help achieve their agenda.
Carly Fiorina’s tenure at HP is controversial. Some say she did well; others not so much. I’m not qualified to judge on that. She has never served in public office, although she ran as a Republican in a totally Democrat controlled state.
Dr. Carson actually completed a full career as a pediatric neurosurgeon, then retired before turning to politics. He has never served in public office.
Donald Trump built a multi-billion dollar real estate/business enterprise before turning to politics. He has never served in public office.
Is getting elected a “qualification?” Is getting elected, then not completing the term for which one has campaigned a ‘qualification?’ If not, we have a number of candidates who really are not qualified.
You made a very good summary of the qualifications of the candidates.
I think we have to distinguish between the concept of qualified and eligible. There is only one candidate who is arguably ineligible and that is the man I support, Ted Cruz. There is only one candidate on the Republican side who has a chance of winning who is unqualified in my judgment and that is Donald Trump because of his biography, his associations, his frauds, his deceits and his sleaze.
I think the question of Cruz' eligibility is a close question and I on balance come down with the conclusion that it was the understanding of the Framers that a natural born citizen was one who was a citizen by virtue of his birth rather than by virtue of a process known as naturalization. I accept that there are dictain two Supreme Court cases which run contrary to this opinion but dicta is not controlling. Moreover, there is a question about whether or not the Supreme Court can or should rule on this issue. Certainly the Supreme Court is not in the business of handing out declaratory judgments as Donald Trump insists. Likely, the court will refrain from ruling by calling this a political question. That implies that the matter should be handled by the House of Representatives or by the political party or by the state authorities or, even better, by the voters.
I think the Donald Trump is being disingenuous in calling for a declaratory judgment. I think that Prof. Laurence Tribe is being passive aggressive in calling for a state official to deny Cruz a place on the ballot in an effort to generate standing.
As I say, on balance I think Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen and that understanding complies with the practice for other candidates on both sides of politics including Goldwater, Romney, McCain and Obama himself.
As to the qualifications, or absence of them, of Donald Trump to be president, that requires a lengthy exposition of his biography.
All the best,
