Should the President and elected officals with the power to send our sons and daughters to war be required to have served in the military?

Yes. If they have not served in combat. they should spend 30 days on the front lines, as a 2LT.

I feel that some form of national service before seeking political office would definitely inspire more confidence in our elected leaders, but in the present era approximately 96.3% of our elected leadership have balked at military service and other forms of national service to include the Health Corps under the Surgeon General and the Geodetic Survey Agency. I don't believe compulsory service for office would ever fly in the US and never really has.

That being said at present, I personally feel that we have been led down a primrose path by our political leadership of the last 30 years and I am now to the point where I feel that we have casted our pearls before the Swine of the Congress, the office of the President, the Federal Bureaucracy and to a some extent, the American people as a whole.

If you want to inspire real leadership trust with this soldier, how about 70% pay cuts in Congress ( including STAFF and GSA benefits, a reduction of federal "benefited" employees in the government as well as a serious reduction in those persons getting entitlements who have never paid real taxes and have never served anyone but themselves), rather than helping themselves to the monies paid in by real Americans, including the under paid members of our military (WHO DO PAY TAXES). How about term limits in Congress ( 5 terms in the house, 2 terms in the Senate and don't let the door hit you in the ass when and if you make it to 24 years of total time) as well as the destruction of the platinum parachute retirement programs that the Congress and other branches of government have voted in for themselves.

How about PAYING OFF DEBT AND MAKING THE DOLLAR STRONG? When peoples life savings are swept under the rug due to a hyper-inflationary depression (which we are presently heading for) and a thieving spend thrift government, I wonder how many government officials will weasel their way out of owning up to that responsibility. Gee, if I ran my life like the government did I would have been thrown in jail for embezzlement and fraud years ago. Then again, "do as we say not as we do" is Congresses mantra for the last 30 years or so. Long Live TEXAS, and to Hell with the present and past socialist and sell-out groups of assholes in the CONGRESS. they have led us to civic disintegration for the last 30-40 years and surely fiscal ruination in the very near future. Our "leadership" (I use that term very loosely due to the lack of real statesmanship in our government) got a bunch of our comrades killed in wars that they (Congress) wouldn't send their own kids to and are NOW saying we should haven't even been fought. In the end the real losers are the American people, but then again, you really do get the government YOU DESERVE!

Absolutely!!

I would like to see this expanded from just the military to federal/civil service. There are many ways that people may serve which does not involve the military. For those who are so mined, there is conservation corps, peace corps etc., where your time can be given in service to others. I think that what we are trying to say, or at least what I believe is that we want our elected officials to have some framework of service and sacrifice before making decisions which would not affect them.

I would answer: No

When we took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, did we really and truely understand this impact? I would say "no"...how many of us really know the U.S Constitution? Oh...we get the main parts, the parts that we can understand but there are 2 more documents that are in concert with...The Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

...and because of these 3 documents, written by our forefathers who had the insight that maybe someday their efforts would not be in vain. These men who wrote the Constitution and signed it, were not all prior military but farmers and landowners who were very well educated. They shared the same vision...

Representing their society, they all put their lives and their families lives on the line in the hope of being free men.

They were hunted down by the British.

Today,our country is still a beacon of hope around the globe and setting an example of our Republic and Democratic process.

President Harry Truman relieved General MaCarthur. Truman was not a military man, however, he knew how to run a business.

Truman had the vision of a limited war with Korea, with no Chinese intervention. General MaCarthur was a Soldier and had the vision of taking the fight to China. When the Chinese came down to the Northern Korea, they pushed the UN, United Nations and allies back down to Southern Korea. Consequently, the General was relieved.

This was a case of broken vision between 2 leaders.

No it shouldn't be law.  The office of President should remain open to all Citizens regardless of military service.  The people elect the President into office, if this was a major concern for the majority, it would result in only Veterans being elected.  I do think there needs to be a massive campaign overhaul though.  Something done to level the playing field for candidates.  Money seems dictate the victor, whoever spends the most usually wins.  Not sure how it could be fixed, I've often thought maybe stopping all campaign fundraising and giving equal airtime to each candidate, let every candidates ideas and beliefs be heard.  It will never happen, but it sure would be nice to have an election where the candidates actually talk about issues and not talking points pushed by lobbyists. 

Not required, but it should be indicated.  Perhaps it would be better for the voters to consider when voting for a qualified leader.  (Emphasis on qualified!)

No.  They are already applying or working to serve our country.  Military service should never be a requirement in a free society for a position like that.  It is the right of the people to run for office and become a part of the political system, that's the whole point of a Republic.  We have minimum age requirements...  I wish we had education requirements, but that too would be, in my opinion, inviolate of the Constitution and its principles.

We are a civilian-run military.  Washington had a large part in ensuring that was the case.  The Congress has the ability to send us to war, but they do so with a great deal of consideration.  Some might not care that they are sending Troops into battle... but I don't think that is even a fraction of a percent.  I am completely opposed to requiring miltary service to serve as CiC.  No way.  It's completely against our principles of government.  We have had a lot of veterans serve as the President, but it is and should never be a requirement.  We must remember that there are many ways to serve our country.  We are in uniform, their uniform is a suit and tie (& female equivalent).  We can't discount their service just because they haven't experienced what we have.