Can a former President run again for a lower office?
Yes. John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives after being president and Andrew Johnson served in the Senate after his Presidency. Althought it is not an elected position, William Howard Taft followed up his Presidency as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Why do people feel they are entitled to government handouts?
You are not thinking clearly. You have posted a "straw man" argument. Since we have an employment rate of over 90%, the need for "hand-outs" is not politically relevant, and not likely a factor in Democrats support for the stimulus package. We do see hundreds of thousands of families suffering because their parents have lost their job. And, I see my own family affected - my daughter lost her job a few weeks ago, and I have a client who works for the state, and cannot afford my services due to forced unpaid days off. So, in the interest of strangers, and my own family's well being, I want the economy to improve. I must point out that the emotional havoc that unemployment brings into a family is horrifying when you think of the millions of children who will suffer at the hands of unhappy, depressed, unemployed parents.
The function of the president is maintain harmony along the political institutions in order to the objectives of the state.The president also has discretionary powers. When no one has the majority in the Lok Sabha, the president has to use his discretion. He appoints the leader of the majority coalition of the Lok Sabha as the prime minister. He could either ask the leader to prove his majority in the Lok SabhaAlso the president signs any bill passed by the legislature to make it into an law. When any bill comes to him,he can refuse to sign it and send it back to parliament for reconsideration.He is bound to sign it if it is signed againThe President also grants pardon to prisoners who are to be hangedThe President is the head of state and appointes the Prime Minister and all the major appointments are made by him.All international treaties are signed in the name of the PresidentAll government appointments are made in his name.He is the supreme commander of the defence forces of India.And he also his the highest formal authority in the state and though his position feels to be waste it is important for him to sustain our parliamentary democracy.. if their is no president then there are chances of India being a dictatorship.Hope it helps
Originally, the President could hire or fire everyone in the executive branch (not the VP, as he is actually in the legislative except when he is replacing the President temporarily). Each President would replace many of the federal employees with those who agreed with his political perspectives (which is to say, where he intended to lead). This was labeled “the spoils system” as hard working federal employees would be replaced simply because of a change in political direction, and “to the victor went the spoils” (of federal jobs). So laws were passed making only the top level positions subject to hiring and firing for political reasons (in other words, without limits to presidential power).I disagree that this change was a good thing. It means that a change in political direction, by the voters, does not reach down to the lowest levels of governance. It implies that the need of the voters to be able to control their government is less important than the need of federal employees to have guaranteed employment. That the needs of the government outweigh the needs and desires of the people. Here was born the intractable federal bureaucracy whose power exceeds that of those elected. Who thus are the real and permanent government whose members include not only federal employees, but also those who are in closely controlled industries such as sellers of weapons, pharmaceutical companies, and health care companies. Individuals move between between regulating and being regulated. It also includes major political contributors. This undemocratic reality was originally labeled “the military-industrial complex” by President Eisenhower. JFK took the problem seriously, but died before he could make any changes. Today, because its scope isn’t limited to military activities, it is called “the shadow government” or “the deep state”.
Why ARE the president, senators etc, exempt from Obamacare?
You are aware that they all met the requirement, since they all have health insurance. So exempt or not, it's really irrelevant. Now, lets look at the claim that they are exempt. Not true. So, here’s the real deal: As things currently stand, Members of Congress and their staff, until 2014, will continue to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This program, considered among the best in the nation, allows federal employees - including Members of Congress and their staff- to choose from a wide range of health plans and select the one that best suits their needs. The federal employee’s program involves private insurance policies with premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc. Now, come 2014, when the lion’s share of the ACA provisions come on line, Members of Congress and their staff will be required to buy their health insurance on an exchange. In fact, their choices will be even more limited than our own. While it is expected that some 24 million people will elect to purchase their health care policy on a state run exchange, we are not required by law to do so. Members of Congress and their staff, however, must buy their insurance in this way. So, tell me, where is it documented that they are exempt?
Should there be a experience requirement to be president??
before everything jackson became hardly illiterate, he became in inner maximum college by employing the age of 15, and he grew to develop right into a criminal professional in 1787, he served interior the protection rigidity on the age of 13, and made all of it a thank you to a significant everyday, he led between the triumphing battles of the conflict in 1812. A choose, Senator, and congressmen. He lived and breathed politics, formerly ever being elected President. ( I in simple terms did a document on Jackson) Im not a recognize all of it George Washington, became the 1st President so how would desire to he have expereince? He became an elected valid, later he became appointed commander continental military. permit's see a everyday, and heroic chief.He had countless foriegn coverage expereince, he over observed the Philidelphia convention. He became a inventor, and entrepenur and ran between the main technologically stepped forward plantations. ( for that element, that's the place technologies became) mutually as you cant have presidential expereince, you've gotten administration adventure, or protection rigidity management adventure. Obama's management became as an area Organizer. An Organizination backside feeding off of government hand outs. some thing of a music record that broadcasts i will lead, i've got carried out it formerly could be amazing. Obama's best project in life became making it with the aid of Harvard with a loose education. In cognress he in simple terms voted cutting-edge. till spending became in touch, then he voted confident, just so he would desire to later blame Bush for it.
Troy Wyld and Kelly Kinkade are right.This has been discussed before. In recent years, when Arnold Schwartzenegger (a naturalized American of Austrian descent) was governor of California, there were those that wanted to see him run for President on the Republican ticket. However, since Schwartzenegger was a naturalized American, he was and is ineligible to become the President of the United States. According an October 2013 article in the Huffington Post, he was even considering a push for an amendment to change the Constitution so that he could run for President in 2016.This requirement for a President to be a non-naturalized American citizen also came up in the 2016 Presidential race in another way: Ted Cruz was not born in America, despite not being a naturalized citizen. He was born to an American mother and a Cuban-born Canadian father in Calgary, Alberta, Canada - thus while not naturalized he was also not “American-born” either. The LA Times had a February 2015 article on this issue.
In an effort to build my long-distance legal bro-mance with Cliff Gilley I have to say that essentially only his answer is correct, and most of the others here are flat out wrong ...First, the President has essentially no immunities from the criminal or civil laws of the United States, and therefore can be arrested for any crime, by any police officer.(Note here: just because he could be arrested, does not mean that any fool gumshoe copper would dare to try without the highest levels of approval ... hell, how would they even get close enough to him to effect the arrest?)(Someone even wrote below that he has "diplomatic immunity". I know a few things about diplomats; and I assure everyone the President does NOT have diplomatic immunity, especially not in the US -- how do you be a diplomat in your own country?).Second, there is scholarly debate on this matter, since it's never been tried, but ... the President CANNOT pardon himself! (The 'logic bomb' on the above statement is simply this: IF the President could pardon himself for crimes, then he would be "above the law" in that he would, unified in one person, possess the means to both break the law; and remedy the break, therefore it would be impossible for him to be liable for a crime. There's a huge legal argument to make here, which would take immense effort, but suffice to say: The President is a citizen, he's not above the law, and as a consequence CAN'T pardon himself.) Third, many assert that the only recourse here is for him to be impeached -- again, FALSE. Impeachment is a political process which only determines whether the President gets to continue in office; NOT whether he's guilty of a crime. Impeachment is ONLY about whether the President gets to hold office. The President could be convicted of a crime and continue to hold office; the President could be impeached (removed) and later found not guilty in a Court.(Also note here, the Constitution stipulates "why" a President can be impeached - for "high crimes and misdemeanors", not that he "is" guilty of a crime - that's what the later criminal trial would be for, and why Nixon had to be Pardoned by Ford, to avoid the criminal trial.)(BN,BR spolier alert:) Sorry, but Cliff's right, and most of the rest of you are wrong ...The President is a Citizen, and can be arrested for a crime, just like anyone else.