Should USA prohibit southern governors from running for President?
458783
Although it might be kind of nice for the rest of the country I think even the ACLU would say no.
267448
I think that would be very beneficial to the US, to simply give a test before they can even begin to run. They would have to make sure it was from a bias party, and that would be the hard part. I mean how many crazy presidents have had, and do have. You would think they would have thought of this, but then crazy people do not think they are crazy.
1122215
For now the white female has the inside track.\n\nThe most obvious black male, Colin Powell, has decided that he will not run for President.  Presidents usually come from four sources. Governors, Vice-Presidents, Senators, and Generals with the best predictor being a governorship.\n\nThere are no African-American governors at this hour although Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania are looking to correct this in 06.  There is one black senator, Barak Obama.  He is a first termer though.  That is generally too little to run.  He needs time and experience.\n\nThere are several white female governors and senators including the junior senator from New York, Hillary.  Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas is a governor who has Presidential potential.  There are others with successful governor tenures, Rell of Connecticut etc.  Being a successful governor seems to be the easiest way to become president ie.:  Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt.\n\nThe odds favor a white female in the short term.
865756
Sorry. Have you ever had a history lesson? Has it ever occured to you that the reason the South votes Republican now is that it was almost exclusively run by Democrats, for Democrats for 120 years? During that period, we had corrupt, inefficient government, slow economic growth, terrible schools, racism, awful health care, regressive taxation, and cronyism to an unbelievable degree? Further, did you know that Southern states were far more statist economies than their northern counterparts, and far more in keeping with Democratic economic theory? With all that in mind, is it any wonder that Southerners reject the Democratic Party overwhelmingly? After all, if there was ever a laboratory for Democratic theories of governance, the South was it. \n\nNow that we have Republicans, we are actually have full employmment, less corruption, rapidly improving schools, and an economy that's rapidly outpacing the rest of the economy. \n\nSo rather than wonder why we're so stupid for voting Republican, consider for a moment that we do so out of experience.
943357
Yes they certainly should, and I don't think it should be a question of being 'allowed' either. They should make the decision themselves for what they feel is best for their country without overbearing 'superpowers' breathing down their necks.
547561
hahaha.. I'm from S.C.... the one state that you would think wouldn't allow that kind of thing... hahaha...\n\nIt's not that we mind... it's just funny because he's an "up and commer" in the Republican party, the party that "don't take kindly to those kind of people"
800430
Aside from the monumental task of amending the Constitution to do this (basically Amending the current Federal system out of existence), how do you propose governing each "region?"\n\nDifferent States have fifferent geographical, demographic, and geological bases, and one "set of laws" would not cover all.\n\nNot to mention, without states, "popular vote" would decide the Presidency, and no regions other than the former New York, California, and Texas would ever see a Presidental Candidate.\n\nBut if you guys who live in States want to give up your rights/responsibilities to govern yourselves, go ahead - we Commonwealths will just take over...
997432
Don't know what you mean by the DECIDER!*.  I do know that many countries look to the USA for financial and military support.  I also know from personal experience that many people believe that all Americans live like George Bush, Donald Trump or Jennifer Lopez.  I have traveled and made it my mission to prove that we are not all "Ugly Americans" nor do we all belong on the set of "Dallas".  Much like the problems in the USA, this is a situation that need to be handled person to person.  I don't recommend Rick Santorum meet with a group of under privileged youth, that would be like Donald Trump sitting down to lunch with people at a shelter.  The USA needs to start at home with representatives who can actually speak to those they represent.  After that they can move on to bridging the gap with other nations.
317914
Yes, I lived in Virginia when he was first elected governor.  I'd like to see how far he could go with a run for the presidency.
115073
Good point, and yet another flaw in our voting process. I would suggest that all voters would have to take a simple test, whether they understand the workings of our government (unbiased ?'s like "How many people on the Supreme Court", or "Name the governor of your state").\n\nTrouble is, voting tests are often associated with the biased "literacy tests" in the South, to make sure blacks couldn't vote. So this idea, while interesting, is unlikely to go anywhere for a while.
1064481
Are you so sheltered to think southern white conservatives are racist or ignorant? We have all kinds, just like New York, but get with the program already. The KKK has always had greater membership in the north than the south since the 1920s & still does today. \n\nDr Rice would be a great candidate we'd love to vote for, but I fear she's too connected to the war. Powell on the other hand would be excellent. I think it's going to be Rudy though & a huge victory.
748719
Well, the constitution does not have a clause saying that "presidential bodyguards are not allowed to vote".  Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to prohibit them from voting.  \n\nNow, that does not give them permission to voice their opinions directly to the president or anyone else while they are doing their duty.  Their job is to protect the president (plus other officials) and not to voice their opinions.  If that happened, I would bet that secret service agent would be reassigned and probably reprimanded.  Their position does not give them special status to debate the prez instead of watching out for him.  If their political views prevented them from protecting the president, then they should work on catching counterfeiters instead.\n\nNOTE added since asker requested to know where in the constitution it said that citizens have the right to vote.\n\nThe constitution does not have an explicit right to vote clause.  However, the Supreme Court has decided that there is an implicit right to vote because of the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to the consitution.  This implicit right gives every citizen the right to vote within limits passed by the states.  The states cannot impose unfair limits, however, such as removing voting rights based on what job you have.\n\nAlso, using your same logic, you could argue that nobody in the military should be able to vote.  The president is the commander general of the military and a vote against the president could be considered mutiny.
759629
Yes and no.  It was about time for a black governor of Massachusetts but MA definitely doesn´t need another democrat.  Politics in that state are now monopolized by the democrats and that poses a threat to true democracy.  MA could have used a female governor too.
202780
That's a good question, I agree with the 1st post, in addition, southern countries should stop fighting each other, like the Iraqi Iranian war, India and Pakistan, instead work with each other..
274050
I do not think an independent Southern Republic (ie: Confederate States of America) would be easy going or even terribly stable. I think it would be a continuing problem to the peace and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.\n\nThe antebellum leaders of the American South were extremely expansionist, looking to add at least Cuba and Nicauragua as new slave states. The fast-profit method of cotton cultivation in the south was so wasteful and inefficient that the ariable land available would have diminished very quickly with the requirement for even more of Latin America to be seized. Because of the growing worldwide trend against Negro slavery, the traditional supply sources would have been unavailable. This would have inevitably required the extension of slavery to the indiginous Indian populations.\n\nThe Southern economy, again because of the quick-profit mentality, was dependent on outside sources for capital and for manufacturing. As a one-product economy, the CSA would have been the victim of the fluctuations of the foreign market for cotton. The federal blockade during the Civil War forced Europe to develop other sources of cotton (Egypt and South America) and this would have made those fluctuations even more traumatic. Transportation and Energy production in the South would have continued to lag with obsolete technology, again because of the quick profit mentality - and small government thinking. Public investment would have continued to be discouraged.\n\nEmancipation would never have happened, and the flight of runaway slaves to the USA would have increased. As a separate and unfriendly nation, the CSA would have very little influence on US policy. The USA would never condone the return of runaways to slavery and probable torture (although George W was born in Connecticut). This would have led to the requirement of a long and fortified border between the two countries, a further drag on both country's economies.\n\nThere is a definite possibility that the two countries would have fought on different sides in WWI (South with England, North with Germany). Imagine trench warfare along the Tennessee River. Regardless of outcome, South would probably have become a partial protectorate of England, certainly would depend on the Royal Navy for protection.\n\nNo, this would have been a bad thing.
4793
Goodness no.\n\nConsidering especially that he had a license revoked in the state of Alabama (meaning he can no longer practice law there) and that in general, his antics have irritated even his staunchest supporters...\n\nno.
332189
Yes. Look at Michigan, Louisiana, the former governor of Virginia, and many more. Even New Mexico.