Originally Posted by SteveZ

Agree in part. I would add that "how" is critical to the job requirements as the Constitution details. To me, the "how' is that ability to be be logical, direct and responsive in times of extreme stress.

The American public is well aware of the obvious high-stress situations like 9/11. Yet there are many others that occur well outside the limelight - and they require a "coldness" in decision-making at the "CEO" level, oftentimes with incomplete information. Presidential Findings are a reality, not just some mystery writer's invention.

We can discount this ability, or recognize it as being a necessary part of the job as President. If we decide it is important enough to demand some demonstration of this ability - past or present - of the candidates, that too is an individual voter's choice.

The President's words and signature effectively "pull the trigger" many times during a 4-year term. We spend a lot of time and money training gun-toters, rescue personnel and crisis action personnel at all levels how to handle job-stress so they don't "blow it" when the stuff hits the fan. It would be nice to know if the future President has this skill and knowledge, or will need to develop it on-the-job.

I hate to think of anyone with the authority to place people in harms way, or order an action which lives are saved/lost in the balance, not having that calmness-under-stress. I just hate betting that someone has it or not based only on "trust me." We would not let a police officer walk a beat without weapons training which included decision criteria for shoot-or-not. Why is a President any different? With whose decisions are the stakes the highest?