Yes, but Senate approval for higher promotions is supposed to function as a check on the presidents’ military powers. I’m by no means an expert, but I think the idea is that having the Senate vote to approve or deny promotions of a certain level or above keeps the president from installing a bunch of loyal followers to key positions and then dissolving the other branches of government through threat or use of his new personal military force.

It sounds like a fuel explosion was caused by a fire that started across the street and spread.

We means-test student financial and medical aid based on total household income regardless of whether other people in the home actually contribute to your finances. Similarly, this could mean people who don’t actually benefit from the wealth of their families (re: adult children suffering financial abuse from their wealthy parents) could be barred from holding office regardless of their actual circumstances, behavior, or political beliefs.

I feel it’s be unethical to put into place a system of political exclusion in the first place, but especially if it could affect people who aren’t actually causing harm themselves and are only guilty by association or the circumstances of their birth.

It’d also probably require a constitutional amendment, because it’s adding additional eligibility requirements on public office positions, which are outlined in the constitution, iirc.

Instead of barring people from political office based on our means-testing practices, why not just institute a progressive wealth tax that caps at 100%, with a significant part of the funds generated dedicated to enforcing tax laws on the wealthy?