Should U.S. citizenship & voting rights be predicated on national service?

So many people in here claim that certain politicians are not fit to legislate because they have not served in the military. Let's take it a step further. Do you think that U.S. citizenship, the right to vote, and in particular the right to hold office should only be given to those who have first served in the military or other national service?
And yes, I understand that there are those who can not serve in a soldier/fighting capacity, but they can still serve in a support function (clerical, medical, IT, etc.).

See Robert A. Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" for a fictional description of a society of soldier citizens.

BTW - this is just a question. This is ONLY a question - no put down or any disrespect meant or implied.
I have just read so many questions that talk about how certain elected officials aren't fit to serve or send troops to Iraq because they were never in the military, and I want to know how important this is to you.
I served 4 years in the Army (non-combat due to gender), so it isn't a put down of anyone who served.

The only problem with that idea is that there is very little in the military that prepares a person for political office.

A solid grounding in law, economics, world and US history would be a better background.

So, if you propose a system that assures only qualified people be allowed to run for office, let's make those qualifications relate to the job.

Soldiering only prepares a person to soldier. It shouldn't DISqualify a person.

By the way, those of you who only saw the recent film version of Heinlein's story are getting a very distorted form of that concept. Read the book to get a much more convincing argument in favor of this idea.

By the way, Heinlein also proposes, in another book that EVERYONE of adult age be required to walk around armed. He said that "An armed society is a POLITE society."

I think the criteria for national service should be broadened to include things like 'park duty in national parks, road maintaince for interstates, working for schools, doing research for government agencies. I think a year of service would be good for people of all ages. Report It

No. I served in the military and still i think thats a crazy idea.

C'mon, get real, there's already way too few people going to the polls as it is.

No, it makes no sense to require that. Citizenship is granted to natural born persons or those who are naturalized. Voting is a right granted to such citizens.

Why should I have to serve in the military or elsewhere to get those rights? Makes no sense.

And requiring military service before serving as a public official is silly. Just becuase I didn't serve doesn't mean I can't understand implications of military action.

These guys make all kinds of economic policy yet many have never worked in the corporate world nor owned their own businesses.

If they allowed alternatives, such as community service or peace corps, then I would think this is a good idea. There is nothing wrong with expecting someone to give back to the government and the community, but to conscript people into military service in exchange for citizenship is a bad idea. Not everyone supports military force.

Think of it in these terms. In the midieval times, people were forced to be Roman Catholic or face execution. So, people would claim they were Catholic just to save their hides. In the case of voting rights, there would be people who would join the military just for the right to vote. What if that person was opposed to violence, would you really want them protecting our nation?

No. Dictator Dumbya would like a miltarized society perhaps not unlike "Starship Troopers" with a little "1984" thrown in to boot.
Dictator Dumbya, without any MEANINGFUL service, along with WJC, and I believe Reagan have broken the TRADITION of military service for the top job, but all it HAS been is a TRADITION and NOT a requirement. And as someone said above, we want to ENCOURAGE, (but but not require), the use of the voting franchise for all adult citizens. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

NO. BUT ONLY PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE MILITARY SERVICE.

THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE SERVED IN ACTIVE DUTY...NOT SHINING AIRPLANES IN THE GUARD.

THINK ABOUT IT...IF PRESIDENT BUSH HAD REALLY SERVED IN VIETNAM, HE WOULD HAVE RESPECT FOR WAR. MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE DYING MEN AND THE BLOOD.

THEN, HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE TRUE FACE OF WAR AND DESTRUCTION. HE WOULD HAVE USED MORE RESTRAINT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHEIF.

ps: I support President Bush because he is our President. These are my observations.