disqualification

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y. – Dem) is pushing to require that if someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun.

I was wondering if the same requirement could be used to disqualify someone from holding public office. And wouldn’t a memoir or public record serve as an admission to using an illegal drug or using a legal drug illegally? Opinions?

I think there would be a lot of resistance to putting up additional barriers to running for public office.

For instance, would you disqualify every person who drank liquor/beer illegally? You know, at the age of 16? Or smoked cigarettes at 16? There would be precious few who got through that sieve.

Or, are you aiming for just the pot smokers? What about California (where the state says it's legal and the feds say it is not)? Are these people allowed to run for state office, but not federal positions?

And what about appointed positions? Like US District Judge?

I think it's a Pandora's Box.

I think we need a better grade of crooks running for public office.

I think we need a better grade of crooks running for public office. Originally Posted by pjorourke

No chit. I think you should have at least tried a drug or two before being able to run.

You may actually run into a constitutional challenge on this one depending on whether it's federal, state, or local.

The people are, at least in theory, allowed to elect whoever they damn well choose. So long as the candidate meets the requirements for holding office set forth in the applicable law they're good to go no matter how much dope they've smoked over the years. Some states don't allow convicted felons to hold office, but just saying you hit the peace pipe a couple of times during summer camp don't equal a criminal record. I don't think you could legally get away with this without a constitutional amendment at the applicable state or federal level.

Probably a different story at the local level, though. As quasi-governmental units cities can usually set their own rules.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Hmmm, let's all rise and say "Dennis Kucinich" at the top of our lungs...LOL.

It's actually pretty amazing to check into certain officers checkered pasts. Several office holders have committed a whole rainbow of crimes. There's a website called politicalgraveyard.com. Spending some time in there is really enlightening research if you can read between lines. We have to remember that charges don't apply to the "who's who", so we just have no clue who is in office or wears a badge. 1/3 of the police department had felony records. where I use to live not so long ago.

Here's a link from that site:
http://downfalldictionary.blogspot.com/

ok so "admit" to an official that you have used drugs? what kind of due process is that? most convicted felons are prohibited from having guns already.

how easy is it supposed to be to lose your constitutional protections around progressives and liberals? oh yeah they know whats best for us

Sounds like one of the worst ideas I have ever heard and there are a lot of bad ones to choose from lately. I wish we couuld see true stats on what percentage of politicians had consumed drugs in an illegal manner at some point.

When asked for comment on that question. Former President Bill Clinton replied.

Unconstitutional on the face of it!

Unconstitutional on the face of it! Originally Posted by John Bull

I agree with you; otoh there isn't much you do find constitutional heh

It can be difficult in these days of progressives and libs.

I think there is a big difference between experimental, recreational, and habitual useage. I remember the stink the media rose when it came out that bush used a substance but gave bill and BO both a pass, saying youthful indiscretion.

It can be difficult in these days of progressives and libs. Originally Posted by John Bull

It wasn't difficult under GWB?