a reply to: Blueracer
If one is mentally incompetent to marry, one may not. That is to say, if one does not understand the concept of marriage, that it binds two people
until death in ideal circumstances, that it unionises two previously individual persons into a single unit, that both parties must love, care for,
cherish and respect the other, for the rest of time, then one may not be married.
That is why people who believe that the sky is bright green, that up is down, that they arrived on this planet on the back of a space unicorn, and
that their intended spouse is merely one of an interchangeable harem of persons they might or might not be having intercourse with, in order to
establish communications with their families in the custard dimension, are considered mentally incompetent to marry.
Now, I understand that the constitution is a much more complicated concept than marriage on the face of things, but the consequences of allowing
someone with all the understanding of the document one would expect from a poodle with a brain tumour, to establish themselves as a potential
candidate for the presidency is a much bigger problem, than one would have in allowing the aforementioned dimension hopper to get hitched.
For a start, the scale of the thing. I realise that failed marriages are terrible things to witness, especially when a child is born into that
fractured household, but a president can mess things up for a great many more people at once, than can be affected by an ill advised matrimonial union
between two completely crazy people. Candidates for president must at least have the understanding necessary to have read, digested, and researched
the document that they will swear to uphold, not only so that they are aware of their responsibilities, but also in order to understand what the
limitations of their power are, and ensure that they never attempt to exceed them, lest chaos befall as a result.
Now, the consitution is a fairly comprehensive and concise bit of work. It is not very many pages long, especially in its unabridged original
condition, and the wording is not so complicated that someone who has been to university for any acceptable reason (no...not football) ought to find
it impenetrably difficult to comprehend. In fact, I think many would agree that it is a document that anyone of any intellect what so ever, can digest
with relative ease, especially when compared to modern legalese.
So there really is no excuse for someone to even aspire to the presidency, until or unless they have not only read the defining document which one
would be duty bound to uphold in taking the position, but to comprehend it well also. These are MINIMUM requirements! The very least that one should
expect from a candidate! How the hell is a candidate supposed to guide the nation, and act in the interests of the constitution and the people, if he
or she has no ability to comprehend the easy part of the job? People are always complicated, both individually, and as blocs of thought on a political
landscape. That much is certain. The people are the hard part, dealing with their needs, crises, and fears. But the constitution is a simple bit of
work, which lays out in relatively simple terms, the concepts upon which the United States is founded, and to be incapable of operating a working
knowledge of the document should be an immediate disqualifying factor for candidacy.