On 1/25/2013 10:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>
> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

If the theory does not agree with the practice, the theory is wrong.

>> And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can
>> issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible
>> (such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).
>
> That sounds like abuse of authority for personal gain, which in itself
> sounds illegal (or at least it should be.)

Or the president could observe that instead of performing his assigned 
duties, the general is doing campaign work (because, as I pointed out, 
doing both effectively is impossible).  Dereliction of duty is a 
court-martial offense.  So the president has him prosecuted under 
military law.  Perfectly legal, and not an abuse of authority, because a 
president who is not up for re-election could do the exact same thing.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message