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?

The Constitution is pretty clear on the requirements. An amendment would be required to add military service as a requirement.

The Constitution is kind of clear on the requirements. An amendment would be required to change them.

Requiring POTUS to have military experience would require a Constitutional amendment. That wouldn't happen. But just to see how that would play out... So that would mean anyone running for president would have to have military experience although I have no clue how much. That would also mean that politician wannabes would want to get their tickets punched just in case. So how do you feel sharing a firing zone with a political wannabe who's just there to punch their ticket? And how do you feel with political riff-raff constipating our training system?

We tend to appreciate POTUS having been prior military but would pay a heavy price to require it.

It would make the president more aware of the plight of today's military

Leadership requires, to some degree, knowledge and experience which goes beyond "book smarts".

It would require a Constitutional Amendment but yes, since the President is Commander in Chief, s/he should have done at least one active duty (not Guard or Reserve) tour to be eligible. It is very difficult to effectively lead an organization in which you've never served...

Answer: No.

Why don't we just follow the Constitution and existing laws? There is no Constitutional requirement for the President to have military service (although Slick Willy claimed protection under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as he claimed that, as CIC, he was on active duty with the military -- what a tool). Congress, however, is the sole determinant under the Constitution of whether we go to war, and, under the War Powers Act, a President may only order forces into harm's way if Congress authorizes it, the United States is in IMMINENT danger of being attacked, or the United States has ALREADY been attacked. Even then, Congress must be informed and consulted within 90 days. When's the last time that was followed?

My vote is, "not necessarily."
I would prefer they have done just a little honorable time, as it gives a little appreciation. My fear, no matter how much you do in the military, with our genitalia-measuring culture, it would never be enough. YOu did four years, I retired. You retired, but never deployed? Never jumped? Dont have a ranger tab? Oh....you were air force reserve?? I kidd!
2nd, the military fools us into thinking that because we were the 'pitoon sarnt' that we are ready to be CEO of Bank of America. A little time in service helps, in principle only. Managing the nation's economy, its defense, its healthcare, its welfare programs...thats a big responsibility and it goes way beyond your PT score and grasp of AR 670-1...

I can see the argument for the President having served, seeing how the office holder also serves as Commander In Chief. However, I don't necessarily agree that all political office holders need to have served. As service members, we fill an important role in our country by keeping it safe from harm. However, we are not the only facet of life in the United States of America.

Part of what makes America great is our diversity. Not only along racial/ethnic/religious lines, but also in the breadth of occupations and interests. We need people who understand warfare, but also people who understand agriculture, technology, and a whole host of other fields to guide our country's policies.

What I don't like about the current state of affairs is all the career politicians who seem to be subject matter experts on getting elected, but not much else. Maybe the requirement should be to show experience in some kind of relevant field, whether it is the military or some other industry.