Sam Ramirez

Mr. Hawkins
US Government Period 5
October 29, 2015

1. What do you think of the formal qualifications for the presidency?

The age requirement for a US citizen to run for presidency is thirty five years old. I
believe that the age that is required to run should be younger than that. I think that if the
candidate for the presidency meets all of the other requirements, age should not keep
them from becoming the president. Lowering the age that citizens can run for president
could perhaps improve the current condition of the nation by having new ideas
introduced. If a natural born candidate has lived in the United States for more than
fourteen years they should be able to qualify for the presidency. Even though the role of
president is highly complex, I am confident that having a president that is under the age
of thirty five might allow the country to think of new ideas. I believe that the age
requirement should be lower. A citizen of the United States that has been naturalized
cannot run for president, because that person was not born in the United States. One of
the requirements in the constitution for the qualifications of the presidency is that the
person running be a natural born citizen. If somebody comes to the United States from
another country, passes a citizenship test and has lived here for more than fourteen years,
that person should have the ability to run for the presidency regardless of age. The
framers may have insisted on the presidency being natural born because they believe
somebody born in the United States would care about how the country is run more than
somebody whose family has migrated here. Letting the voters decide who is best to run
the country is the democratic thing to do. United States citizens are only able to vote on

the Electoral College, who then votes for the next president. If the only available
candidates are not favored by the US citizens, they should not be required to vote until a
candidate is chosen that will do the right thing for the people. The voters should also be
allowed to vote on somebody as long as they are a natural citizen and have lived in the
US for more than fourteen years regardless of the candidates age. If the people feel that
somebody will run the country the right way, they should be allowed to vote on that
candidate.

2. One reason for the Electoral College was that the framers worried that the people were
not adequately informed to make sound electoral decisions is this still a valid concern?
The framers created the Electoral College to make sure that each state had equal votes, no
matter the size of the state or the population. The original reason for the electoral college
being created was that the framers did not believe that the citizens were informed enough
to vote on their own. Instead, the US citizens would vote on the popular vote which,
against the electoral vote does not really matter. A candidate can win the popular vote but
still lose the election because the electors did not vote for him. The citizens not being
adequately informed might apply to some people still, but not all. The presidential

election has become such a popularized thing, the debates are on TV and are treated
almost like reality shows. The Electoral College should not be totally abolished, but the
popular votes should have more weight, especially since it is the peoples decision who
should run the country, not just a couple of electors. People are worried about who
becomes the next president now, more than they ever have, with everybody watching the
debates for both parties almost everybody is informed. The way that elections still go
today, if none of the candidates win the majority vote, the House of Representatives
elects them. I believe that the US citizens should have the final say if none of the
candidates win the popular vote. In that situation, the Electoral College should not be
involved at all, there should only be a re-election for the popular vote. Whoever the
citizens vote the most, should become the new president. Media has increased the citizens
overall knowledge of politics and what is happening right now in the world, the peoples
votes should count more and the Electoral Colleges votes should have less weight.
3. Evaluate the Presidents legislative and judicial powers?
The president has more power in some areas of government than he/she does in others.
The president has increased social and economic growth. The president can also pass
laws to expand the role of federal government which increases presidential power. Mass
media can also be used by the president to talk to citizens instantly, without having to
schedule a meeting and having it televised. Some presidents in the past have thought that
they cannot use or practice their power in the way that was given to them. The president
gets the power to make executive orders from both the Constitution and the acts of
Congress. The presidents executive order allows him to issue rules that have the power
of law. The presidents legislative and judicial powers allow him to report to congress on
the state of the union and recommended legislation, known as the Message Power. The

president has Veto power, which allows the president to not approve a bill. The president
can also reject specific dollar amounts in spending bills that have been enacted by
congress. I think that the president has too little executive power because the president
can only make executive orders when they have been enacted by congress. The president,
in my opinion has too much legislative and judicial power. The president has the ability
to call special sessions. The president can pardon somebody for a crime, and also reprieve
which means to postpone the execution of a sentence. I think that when the president
wants to make executive orders, he/she should be able to without needing to be enacted
by congress. I do not think that either the executive powers, or the judicial powers of the
President should be limited, I think that they just need to be balanced. Allow the president
to make his own executive decisions without congress, and let congress intervene with
some of the president judicial powers.

4. What will the presidency look like in fifty years?

I believe that in fifty years, the presidency will be more powerful. The president will have
equal power in both the judicial branch and the executive branch of government, making
the government more balanced. Increased mass media use will no doubt strengthen the
ways that the president can communicate to the citizens. Sessions might not even need to
be called because the president can talk to the citizens directly. If the presidents power
increases in both branches of government, congress power will weaken in both. I think
that there will be more independent agencies such as; NASA, the CIA, and the EPA
working in the government. The United States citizens will have more say in the
presidential election; the popular vote will have more weight in the overall election. The
age limit for the presidency will have been reduced, which will allow the country to grow
and get fresh, new ideas from candidates who, before the age reduction would not have
been allowed to even run for president. The president will have increased power in the
executive departments, which will allow the president to appoint a head for those
executive departments without needing to get senate approval. The presidency will be
televised even more than it is now, the elections will continue to be shown like reality
shows. Being the president will be looked upon like Roosevelt used to see his job, very
broadly and proud of every power that he had. Maybe in fifty years, we will be able to
have a president that was not born in the United States. The United States will become
vastly more inter-racial if people who are not naturally born are allowed to run for
president. In fifty years, the presidency will have grown into a widely diverse, powerful,
and respected job.
5. 3. The President can only be impeached for committing crimes should Congress have
more flexibility in deciding when to impeach a President?

The president of the United States can only be impeached of his position for committing
crimes. I believe that the system we use here in the United States should be similar to
Great Britains way of impeaching presidents. Whenever the parliament does not trust in,
or have confidence in the Prime Minister, he can be impeached of his role. Presidents
should be able to be impeached for reasons other than crimes. If the Presidents approval
rating falls below sixty-percent of the country, which means half of the country does not
like or approve of how that president is running the country, the people should be able to
impeach him. Changing the standards for impeachment in the US would help to balance
out the power in the federal government. There would be no more Presidents who are
only in it for themselves and run the country in a way that only benefits them, and the
rest of the government. If the president orders the military to go to war with a country
that we have no proof of that country plotting anything against the United States, it would
be best for the United States and the other country involved impeaching the president and
avoiding the trouble. If the President refuses to do what is right for the people and will
not pass any bills to improve the citizens quality of life, they should be impeached. There
should be more ways that the government can impeach a bad president, but there should
also be ways that the government can make sure that candidates like that do not get
elected and become the president. Congress should have the power to impeach the
president whenever they feel like the president is not cooperating and not signing bills
that are in the best interest for the country. Congress should not have to deal with a
president that they feel is being incompetent.