Should being a "pacifist" or "anti-War" be a disqualification for being President?

No.

The issues you mentioned are ones the voters need to consider when making a decision, but there is no constitutional requirement to be pro-military for the presidency.

The 25th amendment has to be invoked by the cabinet, and I doubt they would see it your way if they were appointed by a pacifist president.

Yes I think it should.

It is not a question of being pro-war or anti- war, pro-military or anti-military. It is not even a question of the way the Constitution is written.

Being a "pacifist" or "anti-war" suggests that a person does not understand that there is a proper time to fight and defend, whether that be a Nation or just your family. I believe the same thing applies to people that have no problem or issue at all with war. I wouldn't want a president that would use a feather to hammer down a stubborn nail, just like I would not want someone to use sledge hammer.

I believe the president has to accept that war or even military intervention is unfortunately still a necessity in our world. It is possible that values of a pacifist would not see or understand that and impede them in there presidential duties, since sometimes the safety of our nation depends on a proactive intervention instead of merely a defensive reaction.

no it does not.

Very few pacifists are against self defense which is the only case where war should be considered anyway. Being opposed to violent aggression, which is the most common definition of pacifism, does not mean that a pacifist with a gun would allow you to gang rape her, kill her or her loved ones, etc.

It is pathetic to say that if you have a certain view, you cannot be President. Anyone has the right to hold their own individual views and run for president. In fact, a peace-loving president could probably do more good for us now than a pro-war leader.

We need someone who has the brains, experience and ability to speak a coherent sentence, to try diplomacy before war. There are times when war is necessary but it should be a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted.

If this hypothetical individual refused to take the oath of workplace (requiring they "shield and look after") they does not exchange into president interior the 1st place. in the event that they refused to guard and look after, they could probable be impeached for no longer upholding their oath of workplace. additionally, i individually think of that mutually as pacifism isn't sensible, each and every President could desire to be anti-conflict. I recommend, what sane individual is "professional" conflict? it may consistently be the final motel.

I totally agree with you; if you are not willing to use military force to protect your country and your allies, then you have no business being the leader of a nation. Plain and simple.

That didn't stop Bush, Clinton (cowards) and future others from doing the same. Being in the military also doesn't qualify you to be President, just because you may or may not have served in combat, our government is corrupt and is the epitome of evil in the world, and I can't wait till they all have to give account for their pathetic corrupt lives...the playing field is even in Hell...

Should someone who is pro-war, or aggressive towards other sovereign nations without cause, be disqualified?

Such behavior could lead to war, which would harm our country and thus be in violation of the constitution...

Yes, a man shouldn't run for president if they are a pacificst. What if a man that is as terrible as Hitler threatens to destroy America and is building up massive weapons to destroy us. Would you want a man that wouldn't do anything?