That's the title of an interesting article by LZ Granderson at CNN. It appeared some time ago, but for some reason I didn't notice it until today (that's perhaps not surprising, because Mr. Granderson's articles are not my usual sort of reading matter!). Nevertheless, I found myself nodding vigorously in agreement at this one. Here's an excerpt.
Today, given how money, special interest groups and technology, including electronic media, have diseased the entire political process, I believe it's time we considered some sweeping changes.
And I believe those changes should start at the very top -- the president. There are three ways America can make the presidency better equipped to respond to the 21st century world.
The first would recognize that the functioning of the federal government is impeded by a president's bid to run for re-election. So how can we change that? We start by eliminating second terms.
. . .
When you think about it, the first year is spent operating under the previous administration's budget, and part of the third and all of the fourth are spent running for re-election. Essentially we give a new president about 18 months to focus on creating meaningful policies. A good chunk of the rest of the term is spent fundraising.
But what if we were to amend the Constitution so that each president gets only one six-year term? He or she spends five years focused on governing without handwringing over a bid for re-election.
The second change: a requirement that no person could be elected president without prior military experience.
I'm OK with GOP candidates questioning Obama's foreign policy. I'm not OK with all of this tough talk about Iran, with the risk of starting another war, by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who chose not to serve during the Vietnam War.
Military experience does not necessarily mean serving in wartime, and clearly military experience alone doesn't guarantee a sharp strategic mind (insert President George W. Bush joke here).
But it just seems logical that if you're going to be called commander in chief, there should something tangible on your resume to suggest that title has been earned and not handed to you by a super PAC. It was our 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said, "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can."
. . .
The third change I would like to see may seem small, but it's a long overdue amendment: Raise the age of eligibility to run for president from 35 to 45 -- and cap it at 70.
I know, I know, President Reagan was great -- for some -- but we don't need to be wondering if the person we elect is going to die while in the White House. And since 35 is the new 25, we definitely don't need an inexperienced youngster with his or her finger on the button either.
We're living longer and getting married later, so it would only stand to reason that we alter the age window to reflect those changes. And in this same vein, it would also make sense to establish term limits on members of Congress, and cap the amount of money one can spend on elections.
There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.
Y'know, for the life of me, I can't think of a single negative in any of those proposals. I'd vote for this slate of Constitutional amendments in a heartbeat! What say you, readers?