Credentials and performance

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052
My vote for least equipped goes to Andrew Johnson.

Washington had no books or history to learn from. Not much in the way of any sort of resource was avaliable. You may be right, but Washington made my political point better.

Please, just rephrase that statement!

While not as omnipresent as now books did exist and education for the son and brother of a plantation owner was likely to be quite good.

Preface, Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1916

"It is something over a hundred years nsince Noah Webster began to work on "American Dictionary of The English Language", having in mind the wants of of his countrymen of the United States; the population being sparse and for the most part with very meager opportunities for school education.

The then recent Revolutionary War, --- the destruction of property, the deaths by disease, and the other fortunes of warthat had come to the native population, --- had left a condition of poverty such as produces disaster to schools and the means of education. The situation impressed a citizen of a patriotic and thoughtful turn of mind as one in which facilities for self-education were more important than any other provision which could be made for the welfare of the people. It is not strange that a young man of Websters character, having become a teacher, should think of a spelling book as the first of all necessaries for a population that must be self-taught for the most part, or else remain illiterate."

It goes on, but the point is that education was just not that deep back then. Certainly, no one pasted from the Internet to the Constitution. What we know today, people like Washington wrote, not learned.

Actually it was quite deep. Probably a lot deeper than todays educational system. It was however limited to fewer citizens of which George Washington was one.

It wasn't deep, but it was more focused on minute detail. Lots of stress on languages and pensmanship and such. Not bad since pensmanship was the principle means of communicating over distance then.

Oh, and he had zero experience as Vice President. Did you know that Washington never even worked as a White House Intern?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

You should watch more TV. They just did a thing on the Supreme Court Justice a night or two ago. No, there is no requirement for the knowledge of law to become a Justice.

I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that the Constitution doesn't require a Supreme Court Justice to be an attorney doesn't mean it would be a good idea. It seems to me it would be completely crazy to appoint a non-attorney to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting a non-lawyer would be a good choice for the Supreme Court?

Not at all, I was responding to the post I responded to.

Quote from rchiu: "That's total BS. So you are saying anyone can be a supreme court justice without practicing somekind of law in one form or the other?"

The key word is "can".

Heh, maybe you can tell me which one of the supreme court justice doesn't have experience or background in law. Just because the constitution doesn't have a clear requirement, it doesn't mean everyone have the background and the ability to interpret laws and condition. And it certianly doesn't mean it's OK for the president to nominate someone without the necessary background to do the job. Well, that's unless you don't care if our laws and constitutions are being upheld, just like you don't care if people lost life because FEMA is headed by an incompetent moron.

Hey, if you don't give a damn if this government and this country is going down the toilet, of course anyone "can" be appointed or elected to any post.