Navigating Democratic Qualifications: Why We Should Protect the Right to Run for POTUS

The topic of whether we should add qualifications to prevent individuals like Donald Trump from becoming President is fraught with constitutional and democratic implications. While concerns about a candidate's aptitude and qualifications are valid, it is crucial to understand why limiting the right to run for President is not only unconstitutional but also violates the very foundations of American democracy.

Constitutional Integrity and Democratic Principles

Restricting American citizens from running for President violates the Constitution. Period. It is a fundamental aspect of our republic's structure, rooted in the founding principles that enshrine the right of all citizens to participate in the democratic process. The Constitution specifically grants the right to run for the highest office in the land to qualified citizens. Any attempt to add such qualifications would be a dangerous precedent, undermining the very fabric of our nation's democratic system.

Current Qualifications and Their Purpose

The restrictions currently in place are not designed to limit who can run for the Presidency, but rather to prevent individuals who are ineligible due to certain criteria. These include:

Absence of residency: Candidates must be residents of the United States. Age and citizenship: Candidates must be at least 35 years old and natural-born citizens.

These restrictions ensure that the candidate is familiar with the country's laws, values, and cultural context. For example, Donald Trump and all other legally residing, law-abiding citizens have the right to run for the President, as stipulated by the Constitution.

Democracy and Popular Will

The concept of democracy extends beyond merely obtaining the government or President one desires. It involves accepting the outcomes of democratic processes, even when they are unfavorable, based on the best-qualified candidates who are elected by the majority. The American people's vote is a reflection of their preferences and the democratic process. While the outcome may not always be to one's liking, reforming the system for personal gain is not a feasible or just solution.

The recent example of George W. Bush, who famously remarked, "The moment you realise that you are no longer considered the worst President ever!" highlights the complexity of the democratic process. Regardless of the criticism, the outcome is a result of the people's choice, and it is up to the elected leaders to govern effectively.

Improving Education and Critical Thinking

An ideal way to address concerns about candidates like Trump is through education and critical thinking. An effective education system would equip citizens with the skills to discern true information from misinformation. This would help voters to make informed decisions and better distinguish between legitimate and false claims. The goal is not to place barriers to running for office but to empower voters to make well-informed choices.

Advocating for a 'voting license' is not a viable solution. Such a measure would be a form of voter suppression, undermining the democratic principle of equal suffrage. The reality is that even with improved education, there will always be individuals who do not agree with the outcome of an election, reflecting the nature of democratic contests.

Using the popular vote as the sole criterion would significantly alter the balance of power among the states. The current electoral system, while not perfect, ensures that all states, regardless of population size, have a fair say in the election of the President. Abolishing the Electoral College might lead to a situation where California alone could determine the winner, which would inadvertently favor a particular group of voters and diminish the influence of other states.

Ultimately, protecting the right to run for President as enshrined in the Constitution is essential to maintaining the integrity and strength of our democracy. Any attempts to add qualifications bypass these fundamental principles, risking the very essence of democratic self-governance.