Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:55 pmThat sounds reasonable at first thought but I think it would require a constitutional amendment.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:50 pm You would think a medical clearance would be a pre-requisite to being a presidential candidate. Or at the very least a binding disclosure. After all, the vast responsibility and consequences of the position are such that a medical issue ought not be withheld from the voting public. Especially one that would or could impair judgment.
I suppose someone may argue personal privacy, but I would say if personal privacy were a priority for someone, they should not enter the glass bowl of politics, at least at the national level. We all have a stake in the health of the elected president.
Perhaps such an amendment will happen one day, but sadly it will probably take a case where the lack of such protection was exploited by a presidential candidate that did indeed have a medical issue or condition that they did not disclose. Imagine electing a president with a (known to them) neurological condition or terminal disease that was concealed and then became a genuine impairment.
On a different but related note, given than a constitutional amendment requires the ratification of all 50 states, in looking at the state of politics today, it's almost hard to imagine any constitutional amendment passing under any circumstances. But maybe I shouldn't be so cynical.
