If so, then why?
He can, because there’s no law against it. Probably nobody thought there’d ever need to be!
As an outsider that’s pretty wild. So you can’t buy a firearm but you can be president and control them all. Like what?
Actually the thought is if the government can just imprison you to stop your candidacy, they have too much power.
Thus they can continue to run.
I would say just don’t break any laws then, but laws can change and people are terrible.
Edit: Pretty sure you’re all downvoting a misunderstanding.
I’m saying I get why it’s a thing because people would convict their opponents. Not that I was actually saying well don’t break any laws.
Sure, but a corrupt government can fabricate evidence to keep their enemies silenced.
Look at Russia and their treatment of Alexei Navalny.
Or just regular ass black people in America.
Or the topic of this post
Might be a reasonable argument if you didn’t have 76 years of his rotten behavior as precedent in processing the decision made by a jury of his peers…
just don’t break any laws then
A very naïve idea :-(
Especially when you get into archaic laws that aren’t enforced or widely known.
Remember, there is a mechanism that prevents criminals from winning elections and holding offices, it’s the one that’s the best one in a democracy. The voters.
It’s not good to give governments the power to decide who does and doesn’t deserve to hold authority, it is good to let voters decide if someone’s crimes are relevant to the election.
Sadly, it seems many Americans do not agree with me that trump is not suitable for office. Hopefully enough do that they decide not to vote for him
We’ve got these things called “social media” that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.
We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.
Who thought the intent was to spread Democracy?
The Internet’s been both very good and very bad for Democracy. Without the internet, most people would be at the mercy of CNN or Fox to explain all the horrible things Donny Two Scoops has done.
The concern of the founding fathers was that one state would have political reasons to rush a trial and get a legitimate candidate convicted of a crime in their court. If the conviction was legitimate, it was supposed to be handled by the Electors of the Electoral College.
If the conviction is legitimate, the Electoral College has ways to shut that down.
Our lack of laws around the POTUS are a glaring. It’s insane that a judge can preside over a case where the defendant is a former president who appointed them. Like Judge Cannon and 3 members of the SCOTUS.
Don’t forget, it’s not like he has a right to the presidency. The president is voted in. So technically speaking the people decide if the felonies make a difference or not
Also, you can’t vote in many regressive, discriminatory states but they’d like up in their Klan hoods to vote this felon into office as there is no restriction on becoming president. Rules for thee
Cant vote either
deleted by creator
My man Eugen Debbs ran from prison in the early 1900s. He was thrown in prison for speaking out again the war (the first amendment wasn’t much protection back in the day).
It is good that he could run, since he was a political prisoner. He advocated for the common man against the corrupt institutions.
Agreed. There are situations where it totally makes sense to have a felon run for president. This isn’t one of them
Keep in mind that the founding fathers were guilty of what would have been considered a lot of grave crimes by England, which was formerly the jurisdiction that applied to them.
So they probably wouldn’t have had a huge appetite for blocking political rights of criminals given their recent standing.
Ha, fair point.
But the kicker is that he isn’t allowed to vote right? New York restore voting rights after you have completed your sentence if I remember correctly.
He’s a Florida resident now, but I believe they also take away the right to vote for felons until their sentence is complete.
Florida… HAHAHAHA, this is effin’ to good to be true… in Florida you risk lose your voting rights FOREVER!!!
Florida lets felons vote again.
If a convicted felon loses their right to vote, they should not be allowed to run for president.
They would make protesting Israel a felony so fucking fast
And if he wins again, he’s going to Pardon everybody who buys one from him. Including himself. Because there’s no law against it, and nobody thought that there ever needed to be for that either.
He can’t pardon himself for this one, it’s a State level crime, not a Federal one.
He can appoint two new members to the Supreme Court and then have them rule that Trump, as President, is immune to being prosecuted or held responsible for any state or federal crime but like Bush v. Gore it isn’t a precedent and doesn’t apply to any other President.
You’d think the bad publicity alone would be enough to destroy any chance of election. You’d think.
Yeah, one would really think
Not when he has been creating a narrative since 2020 that he was the real winner of that election and all these court cases are just designed to try and stop him from being President.
His supporters have bought the premium subscription to this narrative, so nothing is going to change their minds. In fact, the more court cases there are, the more support he gets.
Even though going after him for his alleged crimes is the right thing to do, I actually wish they’d just let him fade into obscurity instead. Because all it has ended up doing is helping his campaign.
Well then you’re just letting him win. He’s still going to do his thing and get supporters. Convicting him gives some amount of validity that he’s doing something wrong. Unfortunately he got his hands on a lot of gullible people before someone better could, so we can’t change their minds no matter what we do. Hopefully making his crimes so public will make those not fully converted less likely to buy into his cult.
Our best hope is that “undecideds” realize that it’s not a good idea to vote for him. Gotta get the lead paint chip eating fence sitters to wake tf up.
But his supporters don’t do any such thing as “thinking.”
Haha, if only
Bad publicity is relative.
The “bad publicity” when he is an odious asshole? His base loves that, they think they all should be able to say that stuff out loud.
Legal problems? Well they firmly believe it’s just a conspiracy to witch hunt and every case serves only to fuel their persecution complex
Anything else? Lies by the liberal media, they see the truth on Fox News. When Fox News even reports on it, then they shun them and off to newsmax or just their favorite Facebook posts.
You’d think…
…but what does the government have?
Yes, and it’s important that felons be able to run for president. Were that not the case, a corrupt enough system could just disqualify anyone that would seek to oust it.
This is true.
But, it must also be pointed out that that’s another case of good faith actors getting fucked by assholes. In theory this sounds good, like free speech and tolerance for all. But when you are dealing with criminals and sociopaths those virtues get used against you.
Absolutely, and it’s infuriating. The only thing that can stand between criminals and sociopaths is the vote, and a too much of the vote is controlled by morons.
Like republicans do consistently.
Yeah but honestly without implementing ‘one true philosophy’ I can’t see any ground to stand on where they shouldn’t be allowed to.
What if god comes down tomorrow and says ‘the fuck you guys are keeping babies instead of killing them?!?’
To us we really got no frame of reference of an absolute ‘good faith’ or bad, so enforcing it just seems like encouraging abuse of the system.
Good and bad faith doesn’t refer to anything about religion.
Acting in good faith means you’re not using deception or hypocrisy and your words and arguments reflect your true beliefs and the intent behind your actions. You use words to express what they mean.
Acting in bad faith means you present a false front to deceive others into thinking you are someone you are not. Your words and arguments do not align with what you believe or why you act. You use words to get what you want or confuse those who might otherwise oppose you.
Not that that distinction makes it any easier to recognize good or bad faith in general. Or to convince those who put their faith in bad people that they should re-examine their position. It just doesn’t necessarily refer to any kind of religious experience.
I feel as if I’ve seen this before…
I don’t know what you’re referencing, sorry if im a bit dense haha
Something something birth certificate?
The Constitution spells out who is eligible to run for President, and does not say criminals are ineligible. It’s as simple as that.
I do find it odd that you guys put so much emphasis on a document written in a time nothing like today.
Like surely it should evolve, but I can see how that would go right now so it’s probably for the best.
We do amend the Constitution from time to time, but it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of states. so it’s quite a high bar.
Just because an idea is old, doesn’t mean its a bad idea. And we do have mechanisms for modifying the constitution. We just don’t do it often because it requires a lot of agreement.
I think we have more enlightened and more informed views now than 270 years ago is alls I’m saying.
Just the right to bare arms is such an example. Weapons are completely different these days.
I exercise the right to bare arms as often as possible, and my farmer’s tan is proof of that.
That’s the problem. No people ever think they’re the unenlightened ones. Society changes but not always for the better.
The Constitution is a safety rail to protect us from ourselves.
I think we have more enlightened and more informed views now than 270 years ago is alls I’m saying.
Bruh with literally every country on the planet turning more fascist by the day that’s a bold statement to make
I mean it’s like y’all are forgetting that slavery was well more prevalent in the western world, although there could be an argument for wage slavery today.
The fact that being homosexual, trans, or whatever else was condemned and you would go to prison for such things.
The world today is fucked, but it was a lot more fucked a couple of hundred years ago.
Guess what stopped slavery in the US, legally? A Constitutional amendment.
We do too trust me
We don’t have parliamentary supremacy. What we have is what we have. A rough equivalent is that (assuming you’re a UK citizen) the Lords could still veto bills and the Commons couldn’t force the issue.
Yep, cause the constitution doesn’t forbid felons from running for president.
It forbids them from ever voting again though.
The Constitution doesn’t do that, that’s up to the states. Also, you don’t have to be eligible to vote to be the president. The US Constitution outlines the only eligibility requirements for the president.
So…in theory a state could ban all its constituents from voting for presidency?
The fourteenth amendment would probably bar this, but it’s never been tried.
The congress can still impeach Trump for a third time even though he’s not in office, and if the Senate convicts, they can ban him from ever holding public office again.
I’ll take things that’ll never happen for $100
yes, felons can campaign for president and be elected. technically it’s even legal for the president to be locked behind bars while serving.
The sad part is that despite being a convicted felon he will most likely never see the inside of a jail cell.
I wonder if the secret service would need to be locked in the cell with him.
Yes. And he’s not the first to run a campaign from prison (though he likely won’t go to prison for the 34 felonies. Prison is extremely rare for those kinds of charges. even if he wasn’t trump.)
Cohen did time for the exact same crime
This is incorrect.
Cohen plead guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations
Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records
Not only is the substance of the charge different, Cohen’s crimes were federal where Trump’s conviction is state.
the charges that trump is guilty of, the sentencing very, very rarely includes prison time. (because we live in a fucked up country where you can get away with anything as long as you’re a business.)
Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, 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.
No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.
That constitutional amendment being the 14th
So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.
Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.
Where does it say that no other qualifications can be considered? It certainly lists a lot of qualifications that are required, but doesn’t say that it’s an exhaustive list.
Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456
If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.
The 35 year old requirement seems bizarrely high to me, I can’t see why a smart and capable 32 year old should be prevented from running for the office. A minimum age makes sense, but it’s weird that it’s far removed from when most states start to legally treat kids as adults (anywhere from 16 to 21).
Yes, and there’s precedent that he can still run even if he’s imprisoned.
Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.
Convicted felons can’t vote so he can’t vote for himself. 🤣
I was thinking this too. All felons should sue for their right to vote on precedent that a felon if, elected president, could sign in laws.
The current record for number of US presidental votes received while in prison is about 1,000,000. Eugene V. Debs is the record holder, and that election was in 1920. Trump just may beat him this year. There is no law that says you can’t be president while in prison.
deleted by creator
I just don’t get how someone convicted for ELECTION FRAUD can still be a presidential candidate
deleted by creator
It’s because the mechanism for adjudicating the high crimes and misdemeanors resides in the legislative branch. They have to adopt articles of impeachment and then convict and remove the President.
If any state crime felonies could automatically disqualify a candidate it would create perverse incentives that should not reside within the power of one state, because of the abuse potential. For example, Texas could drag Biden into court on felony jaywalking charges.
Theres no law saying he cant
Airbud
https://learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause
Maybe. It’s complicated
Edit: yeah I’m conflating two different things. Interesting listen though
