A Jack Kelly Tradition

As it's Sunday, Jack Kelly's got a column in the Post-Gazette.

Not sure what to make of it, really, as he seems to be travelling in two directions. On the one hand, he's pointing out somewhat negatively the low percentage of veterans among the members of both houses of Congress:

What Congress does or doesn't do in response to Gen. Petraeus' report largely could determine whether we win or lose. But the number of senators and representatives who are veterans -- that is to say, who have the experience to make an informed judgment about what Gen. Petraeus has to say -- is the lowest it's been in half a century.

Only 29 percent of senators and just 23 percent of congressmen have worn their country's uniform, according to the Military Officers Association of America. That's down from 68 percent of senators and 48 percent of representatives in 1991, noted Washington Post reporter Peter Baker in an Aug. 24 article.

Here's Baker's article, by the way.

But J-Kel writes:

Most of our presidents have worn the uniform. Twelve of the 42 were generals. But having a Congress composed chiefly of people who have never served is actually a return to normalcy.

Virtually every able-bodied male of military age served during World War II. The Korean War, the Cold War and the Vietnam War kept the draft in place, troop levels high and (until Vietnam) veterans' status prestigious. But for most of our history, our armed forces have been small and all-volunteer, and few in Congress had served in them.

So it's normal for there to be so few veterans in Congress - but that's not a good thing now. Not sure I follow. But then there's a lot of things Jack Kelly says that I don't follow.

Kelly seems to be saying that because there are so few veterans in Congress, they might not be able to understand what General Petraeus will be telling them and they might, just might, not make the right decision about Iraq.

Of course it goes without saying that J-Kel knows what's the right thing to do in Iraq.

Though one would think that in a democracy (even a represenatative democracy such as ours) our elected officials should be working to do what the people want. And what do the people want? They surely don't want this war. According to a recent CNN poll (8/6-8/07) the American people oppose the war by nearly 2-to-1 (64% to 33%).

The same thing can be said for a troop withdrawal. According to a recent CBS poll (8/8-12/07) 61% of the American people want the number of troops to be reduced or removed alltogether. Only 30% feel the numbers should remain steady or be increased. That's another 2-to-1 against the status quo.

So after dismissing the idea of a draft (which would, of course, increase the number of veterans in Congress - though not in the way I suspect Kelly would want) he offers up a "modest proposal" in his last paragraph:

We can spread the burden of military service more equitably and produce a Congress that better understands what it takes to win in war without a draft. All we need do is make it a condition for holding federal office that a candidate have an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces.

That's right - all we need to do is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Let's take a look to see what the Constitution says about the qualifications for being elected to Congress.

For the House, It's Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2:

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

For the Senate, it's Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

And for President, it's Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Nothing in there about military service.

My guess is that Jack Kelly, lover of American Democracy, would rather have the Constitution changed to get a Congress more amenable to his views on the war than have a Congress that actually does what the people want them to do.