So Romney is proposing a Constitutional amendment that would add working in business for 3 years to the citizenship requirements for being president? I doubt he's serious, it's just his way to say he's more qualified while using code words to pretend Obama is not a birth citizen. However, according to Romney himself, Washington (and the other founders) were unqualified to be President. So were Lincoln, both Roosevelts (of course he probably doesn't like either one), Eisenhower, who only led U.S. and Allied forces in World War II but never worked in business, and the sainted Ronald Reagan. Qualified were Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. Be careful what you wish for!
Reads to me like Romney was repeating what some business owner told him, and not that Romney is advocating such an amendment. Then again, I'm not a supersmart liberal, so perhaps I'm missing something here?
It seems weird that he would repeat something he didn't agree with, or want other people to consider unless he himself believed it. But what do I know, i'm just a passive aggressive jerk.
And does that discredit Crandc's point about strong business background presidents (lawyers excluded because Obama was a lawyer and that doesn't count right?) make for poor presidents. Have you heard about that Peanut farmer business man, republicans love so much? ps http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/
and most of them sold slaves, thats business too pretty sure reagan was an actor, thats buisiness and obama must have sold a dime bag of weed at some point
The involvement of business leaders in any branch of government has always been a sure-fire recipe for graft, waste, and loss of liberty. There is no upside.
Farmers are hardworking businessmen. Lawyers are parasites. If you don't know the difference, you must be a lawyer.
As for a President who wants to change the Constitution, no thanks. He's obviously not a Real American. I want a President who will UPHOLD the Constitution.
I love it when a Realtor calls someone else a parasite. If there's a bigger externality on a process, I can't think of one.
I have no problem with changing the Constitution, so long as it follows the amendment process. I have a problem with changing the Constitution when it's done by bureaucratic regulation.
He was indeed quoting what someone said to him, with approval. Not "someone said this" but someone said this and it's a good idea". I'm not a liberal. But I do know the difference between neutral citation and citation with endorsement.
Romney was using what the citizen said as an endorsement. For a president with business experience. I don't blame him or find anything at all wrong with this. Why shouldn't he tout his qualifications?
Where did he say that a constitutional amendment is a good idea, let alone proposing one, as you stated in your original post?