Written contract with a presidential candidate?

Question

Why we use written contracts everywhere, but not doing it for the most important thing? Wouldn't it be wise to prepare a contract with all the possible questions with check marks or empty fields to fill for the candidate. It would be hard to answer them all, but if you want to become a president you should be very educated and have knowledge in range of topics(history, sociology, foreign policy, economics, etc). The questions whould ideally include every possible decision that a president should make in his term. If an elected president breaks the contract, he will be legitimately impeached or sued and arrested if needed. This way there would be no fools and demagogues. Now we just naively believe their beatiful words and they almost never do as they promised.

Also it would be wise to test candidates if they capable for empathy. I'm sure psychiatrists can do it. Current test for empathy(in US) I guess, not sure, it's Bible oath, which is naive.

Edit: This question although similar, not exactly a duplicate. Duplicate is when everything matches. The other question asks for legitimacy and financial liability of such an agreement, this question proposes such an agreement with it's specific set of features. Also consider agc's explanation in a comment section.

Also, you may want to check https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/437/should-politicians-be-bound-to-keep-campaign-promises and https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/64/what-inhibits-a-winning-candidate-from-doing-exactly-the-opposite-of-what-he-pro — SJuan76, Jan 15 '18 at 16:36
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18283/why-do-us-presidential-candidates-not-issue-formal-written-manifestos?rq=1 might also be of interest, but isn't a duplicate. — , Jan 15 '18 at 16:40
I don't understand what you mean by "contract". A contract is an agreement between two persons, yet that isn't what is implied here. I don't understand how you imagine the process of "every possible decision" being decided on. You then complain about fools and demagogues. Then this question becomes too broad, by also asking about a "test for empathy". And then going on to something about anarchy - not sure how this is relevant. Try to phrase a single clear question, that can be answered. The linked duplicates seem to answer most of your question. — James K, Jan 15 '18 at 20:42
@James K, maybe it's not a contract but sort of it. Or it is contract between the people who elected him and the president. Is it too much difficult to understand? I said IDEALLY every possible desicion, but in practice it can be most of his/her desicions. I don't think it's too much of a thing. History can also help with this. About anarchy, you may be quite right. I have read the duplicates there are good answers, but i prefer not to mark this question as a duplicate, as those questions written in their own different way. — lava-lava, Jan 15 '18 at 21:35
@jamesqf, because you are going to represent many different people. To understand their problems you have to enter their position, you have to become them. — lava-lava, Jan 15 '18 at 21:43
Suppose a presidential candidate is pro-slavery, wins office, and changes his mind, then opposes slavery. His voters compare his new actions with the questionnaire/contract he pledged to comply with while a racist, and so he is promptly fired for breach of contract (not being the racist he pledged to be). A more recent example would be Robert Byrd, who, had he filled out such a contract would therefore have been sacked. — agc, Jan 16 '18 at 01:20
This question differs from Is it legal for an elected official to sign a contract binding him to vote in a particular way, if no value is exchanged?, in that the other question presumes a wishy-washy pledge or psuedo contract that's easy to wriggle out of or ignore. Here the presumption seems to be an actual legally binding instrument to force politicians to strictly abide by a personally agreed upon set of exacting terms. — agc, Jan 16 '18 at 01:25
@lava-lava: No, you don't. Sometimes, perhaps often, it's easier to deal with problems while maintaining a good degree of emotional distance. See for instance the old saying about not seeing the forest for the trees. — jamesqf, Jan 16 '18 at 03:31
@jamesqf, give a clear everyday example of why it's better. For me it's clear that if there are conflicting groups, then to solve the conflict you try to understand their motives and feelings, that's what empathy is for. If everyone had good capacity for empathy, there would be much less conflicts and much less poor and oppressed people on Earth. A person that doesn't care about other peoples feelings and problems is considered "bad". — lava-lava, Jan 16 '18 at 09:15
@lava-lava: For an everyday example, consider a surgeon. Empathizing with his/her patient's pain would get in the way of the surgery. OTOH, understanding motivations often doesn't help to relieve conflicts. For instance, I understand the motivations of certain religious fundamentalist all too well (I was raised by them), but that doesn't mean I'm going to ever submit to their religious doctrines. — jamesqf, Jan 16 '18 at 23:17
@jamesqf Well for a surgeon it is nessecary temporaly for sure, but overall he/she empathizes with his parents/patient, maybe that's why people choose to become surgeons. Again, overall you feel the pain of parents and want to help, but you have to shut down emotions in order to do that. — lava-lava, Jan 17 '18 at 08:44
@jamesqf, You don't have to submit to their religious doctrines to relieve your conflict. You try to find a compromiss. For example, I like my parents cause they love me or nice to me, they raised me, but they are christians and naively believe in God etc. and support calolic church, which were murderous bastards in the past. But christianity was invented by a jew hippie who wanted to spread good morality. — lava-lava, Jan 17 '18 at 08:46
@jamesqf, Then it was taken over by Roman Empire and turned into an oppressing tool. There are evil people in Catolic church today(like masons in christian's clothings), but my parents are overall good people and have nothing to do with evil parts, maybe I shouldn't be too critical. There are movements that are trying to fix christianity but it's not easy at all. Watch Noah Chomsky's video on religion on youtube. — lava-lava, Jan 17 '18 at 08:46
@lava-lava: Certainly there are good people who happen to be Christians (or followers of most other religions). There are also religious fundamentalists, who settle for no less than total obedience to whatever their scripture happens to demand. As for watching that video, even if I did video (which I don't: I'm literate), I would not watch anything from a known liar like Chomsky. — jamesqf, Jan 18 '18 at 02:31

score 1 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 15 '18 at 22:03

You seem to be lamenting the fact that we don't have higher-quality people in public office. But if you were to make a potential president sign a contract, who gets to decide the terms of that contract? Who gets to decide what their agenda and priorities should be? Who decides what is right and what is wrong for a president to do? And who decides what the punishment should be if he/she violates those terms?

The answer to those questions is the law. The fact of the matter is that there already is a contract that a country's president must abide by. It's called a Constitution. Every country has one.*

The president of a country is an elected official, and is subordinate to the rule of law (otherwise he would be a dictator, not a president). If you want to change how the president behaves, or outline specific qualities he/she must have in order to qualify for that office, you have to change the law. How you go about doing that depends on the country.

In the United States, the qualifications to be president are outlined in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Can you add the provisions you propose? Sure you can! You just amend the constitution to spell it out, and there's a process for doing that. Other countries have a similar process.

This is how democracy works. If you want your leaders to act a certain way, use whatever power you can muster with your fellow citizens and pressure your leaders to do things you want them to do. If you don't like the leader you get, wait a few years and then participate in your country's semi-annual coup d' etat that we westerners call an "election". Engage in public discourse. Convince your fellow countrymen that there is a better way and let them decided if they want to believe you or vote the same way you do.

The whole point of a government of, by, and for the people is so that we don't have autocracies that rule on their own personal whims. We don't always live up to those ideals, but they are the ones we strive for. History has shown us that, even with its many flaws, it's still the best system yet devised.

*All countries have a supreme body of law, which may or may not be called a Constitution per se, and may not be contained within a single document.

Is there a way in democracy(in US, for example) to dismantle democracy? — lava-lava, Jan 15 '18 at 22:32
@lava-lava; Sure. It was already done once with the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the current U.S. Constitution. There is some scholarly debate about whether or not the Constitution was actually legal under the Articles, but the point is that the old government was completely dismantled in favor of a new one. If you wanted to replace the American democracy with a Soviet-style communist state, Article 5 has a process by which you could do that. It's self-contradictory logic but technically speaking it could be done. — Wes Sayeed, Jan 15 '18 at 22:55

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 15 '18 at 16:36

Beyond the absurdity of trying to write a contract which could serve as an algorithm for making arbitrary presidential decisions, the US constitution states that officers of the US can be impeached only for "high crimes and misdemeanors". While no Supreme Court decisions have clarified what counts as a high crime or misdemeanor (on the contrary, they've ruled that they can't), breach of contract is not a crime, only a situation which can lead to a civil action. It's unlikely that 2/3 of the Senate would be willing to ignore that part of the Constitution.

Written contract with a presidential candidate?

2 Answers2