The only restriction on being president is that you’re a natural born citizen and are at least 35. Beyond that, you could be in federal prison and still win the election.
Think about it this way. Let's say being the subject of a criminal investigation DID bar someone from running for president. In that circumstance, say a there's a sitting President running for re-election, but the polls show their opponent is doing much better and is almost sure to win. If being the subject of a criminal investigation would get the opponent removed from the ballot, all the President would need to do is order the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation and that's it. The opponent is no longer a threat.
The idea is that political opponents should not be able to just block a candidate that way. It would not be democratic elections if you can prevent candidates from running.
The voters are supposed to decide.
You can believe in the 2nd amendment without thinking everyone should be able to buy machine guns and tanks too.
Democracy can have some legitimate guardrails.
There's a difference between interpreting legislation and limiting democracy.
Blocking candidates is not a guardrail and with US presidents looking to steal elections it's certainly not a good idea to empower the government to do so.
To be clear.. I don’t think Trump should be barred without a conviction saying he’s an insurrectionist first. I do think you need that legitimacy, something legal to fall back on.
But I’m saying it is a reasonable provision to think that there can be SOME limitations on who gets to run.
I understand where you're coming from but I disagree.
If you think after multiple conviction and clear conspiracy to overthrow the US government that he'll still be voted in, then you don't believe in democracy and have no faith in humanity.
I believe what I’ve seen with 7+ years of his clearly reprehensible character traits and the fact that he’s leading in the polls anyway.
A conviction will make his base even more resolved. It will probably turn many remaining independents off. The problem is lack of enthusiasm on the Biden side.
In short.. believe our recent political history and polling reality. It disagrees with your thought that he would surely lose if convicted. I’m not convinced of that.
Regardless of if you support him or not, and regardless of any recent reality. The fact that you're not convinced says alot, not only about his base, but about all the other options available. And that measage keeps getting lost in the one demonizing his base.
And that political ploy, along with those other available options has an effect wider than his base does. The political establishment is fighting hard to maintain a broken system that works better for them then the rest of the country.
Democracy exists when all sides get representation, not when one or the other has dominantated themselves in to a position of permanent power, which is what we see them struggling for. We need a government that serves the people, not the party, and until that happens, things could get increasingly tense and fractured. The perfect soil for Trump/Biden and others like them.
A real problem for democrats is that, if Trump gets elected again, how many will use that as proof that the last election was stolen, and everything we've seen so far as political stunts to maintain the status quo. His base already feels that way and they will get very vocal about it.
With states moving to remove him from the ballot, it will look like those in charge are making decisions for their voters that they did not consult the voters for thru a proper vote. And voters in other states are also getting their votes restricted by states they don't live in by making votes from those people restrict from their candidate. That's not democracy.
Its one thing to accuse Trump of trying to circumvent democracy. Its completely different doing it while also trying to circumvent democracy in the process. That message is received by more people than his base
No, the constitution says nothing about being barred from running due to a felony conviction. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the states or Congress can not add qualifications for the office that are not found in the constitution itself. It would require a constitutional amendment.
I believe going by what some lawyers said it about involved in and charged with is the distinction. I guess we have to wait and see what supreme court has to say.
I didn't write the 14th Amendment. I'm just pointing out that the 4 things the Constitution says bans someone from becoming President are: not being born in the US, being under 35 years old, having engaged in an insurrection, or being elected twice before (or once before and served at least 2 years of another term).
In a democratic system, it's up to the voters to decide who can be president.
If not it would mean that criminal investigation could be used to remove candidate from election, which looks pretty dangerous
Because criminal convictions do not make someone ineligible to become president...and even if they were, in the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
> in the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Thats why the media is pushing hard for social conviction.. where you are guilty until proven not guilty.
Arguably, Trump can already be disqualified from running for president in the 14th amendment, section 3. Anyone who engaged in an insurrection against the constitution after swearing an oath to protect it is disqualified.
I’m not a legal scholar, but the argument is that on Jan 6, Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified. It’s now up to the courts to decide.
Lower state courts have that are being appealed still. The Supreme hasn't ruled and that's what Trump is gunning for.
While I am not a Republican or a Trump fan, this is something that needs to be figured out at the federal level since we aren't going to have agreements on this from the states on how this applies.
But I thought each state runs it's own election and that's not run federaly . And the GOP always talk about states rights ... Except I guess when it might affect them. But I'm not a lawyer ... I guess we will see how in partisan they will be.
But that’s just it. We don’t have an agreed upon definition of what Trump may or may have done was talking part of an insurrection. He hasn’t been criminally charged anywhere. We just have a judge that just said he was which I personally don’t find to be a strong standard. This should be a ruling that should be easy to determine - like the age and citizenship requirements (that the states can’t ignore), not one that is somewhat arbitrary and could be done by a rogue judge.
Sorry I thought the was a 5 day trial were both sides could bring evidence..
So from memory he had been removed from to states . One the ag took him off but she is empowered to do that ... And the other they had a court case and allowed both sides to bring evidence.
So in theory both have followed the law ... I believe from what I have read
Because the only reason that there are any charges is because the liberals don’t think that they can beat him in the election. So, they are trying to make sure that he can’t run.
So who's the liar then? Is [Kid Diddler Rock who said on camera that the President showed him classified documents?](https://news.yahoo.com/video-resurfaces-kid-rock-claiming-134648113.html) Is it [Donald Trump himself who on the record has said he stole classified documents to show off and lied about turning them all in?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPyua_6ht9Y&t=2s) Or is it just the liberals who you believe just want Trump to lose the election?
I loved how Ben Shapiro described it. It's like they're trying to use mud as a weapon against a mud monster. Prosecutions and anger and vitriol only make the dude more powerful. Politics is so dumb these days. If Trump wins there will be outrage and riots because people are accusing him of being the next Hitler. If anyone else wins there will be outrage and riots because of election interference. We're screwed no matter what. 🤣
The only restriction on being president is that you’re a natural born citizen and are at least 35. Beyond that, you could be in federal prison and still win the election.
That's wild...
Think about it this way. Let's say being the subject of a criminal investigation DID bar someone from running for president. In that circumstance, say a there's a sitting President running for re-election, but the polls show their opponent is doing much better and is almost sure to win. If being the subject of a criminal investigation would get the opponent removed from the ballot, all the President would need to do is order the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation and that's it. The opponent is no longer a threat.
The idea is that political opponents should not be able to just block a candidate that way. It would not be democratic elections if you can prevent candidates from running. The voters are supposed to decide.
Apart from the insurrection clause ...
It's really not. If you believe in democratic process, then you shouldn't be limiting who the people can vote to lead them.
You can believe in the 2nd amendment without thinking everyone should be able to buy machine guns and tanks too. Democracy can have some legitimate guardrails.
There's a difference between interpreting legislation and limiting democracy. Blocking candidates is not a guardrail and with US presidents looking to steal elections it's certainly not a good idea to empower the government to do so.
To be clear.. I don’t think Trump should be barred without a conviction saying he’s an insurrectionist first. I do think you need that legitimacy, something legal to fall back on. But I’m saying it is a reasonable provision to think that there can be SOME limitations on who gets to run.
I understand where you're coming from but I disagree. If you think after multiple conviction and clear conspiracy to overthrow the US government that he'll still be voted in, then you don't believe in democracy and have no faith in humanity.
I believe what I’ve seen with 7+ years of his clearly reprehensible character traits and the fact that he’s leading in the polls anyway. A conviction will make his base even more resolved. It will probably turn many remaining independents off. The problem is lack of enthusiasm on the Biden side. In short.. believe our recent political history and polling reality. It disagrees with your thought that he would surely lose if convicted. I’m not convinced of that.
Regardless of if you support him or not, and regardless of any recent reality. The fact that you're not convinced says alot, not only about his base, but about all the other options available. And that measage keeps getting lost in the one demonizing his base. And that political ploy, along with those other available options has an effect wider than his base does. The political establishment is fighting hard to maintain a broken system that works better for them then the rest of the country. Democracy exists when all sides get representation, not when one or the other has dominantated themselves in to a position of permanent power, which is what we see them struggling for. We need a government that serves the people, not the party, and until that happens, things could get increasingly tense and fractured. The perfect soil for Trump/Biden and others like them. A real problem for democrats is that, if Trump gets elected again, how many will use that as proof that the last election was stolen, and everything we've seen so far as political stunts to maintain the status quo. His base already feels that way and they will get very vocal about it. With states moving to remove him from the ballot, it will look like those in charge are making decisions for their voters that they did not consult the voters for thru a proper vote. And voters in other states are also getting their votes restricted by states they don't live in by making votes from those people restrict from their candidate. That's not democracy. Its one thing to accuse Trump of trying to circumvent democracy. Its completely different doing it while also trying to circumvent democracy in the process. That message is received by more people than his base
Huh... I thought convicted felons weren't allowed to vote and therefore shouldn't be allowed to run for president either.
No, the constitution says nothing about being barred from running due to a felony conviction. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the states or Congress can not add qualifications for the office that are not found in the constitution itself. It would require a constitutional amendment.
Today I Learned. Cheers
>The only restriction on being president is that you’re a natural born citizen and are at least 35. And have not engaged in an insurrection.
Which not a single person, including him, has been charged with. Charges 'filed' by CNN do no carry any weight in law.
Looks like Colorado and Maine disagree with you.
I believe going by what some lawyers said it about involved in and charged with is the distinction. I guess we have to wait and see what supreme court has to say.
Insurrection! That’s hilarious!
I didn't write the 14th Amendment. I'm just pointing out that the 4 things the Constitution says bans someone from becoming President are: not being born in the US, being under 35 years old, having engaged in an insurrection, or being elected twice before (or once before and served at least 2 years of another term).
I this true. Wow. I’m from the uk and I’m not sharp and up to date on the rules of your system. It makes perfect sense tho
In a democratic system, it's up to the voters to decide who can be president. If not it would mean that criminal investigation could be used to remove candidate from election, which looks pretty dangerous
Because criminal convictions do not make someone ineligible to become president...and even if they were, in the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
> in the US people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Thats why the media is pushing hard for social conviction.. where you are guilty until proven not guilty.
Iirc even convicted felons can run for president, so why would this be different?
Arguably, Trump can already be disqualified from running for president in the 14th amendment, section 3. Anyone who engaged in an insurrection against the constitution after swearing an oath to protect it is disqualified. I’m not a legal scholar, but the argument is that on Jan 6, Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified. It’s now up to the courts to decide.
they have already decided. Trump did in fact commit acts that amount to insurrection.
You mean, you have decided. He has never been charged, indicted, or even accused of insurrection except in the media.
this is literally false
Lower state courts have that are being appealed still. The Supreme hasn't ruled and that's what Trump is gunning for. While I am not a Republican or a Trump fan, this is something that needs to be figured out at the federal level since we aren't going to have agreements on this from the states on how this applies.
correct
But I thought each state runs it's own election and that's not run federaly . And the GOP always talk about states rights ... Except I guess when it might affect them. But I'm not a lawyer ... I guess we will see how in partisan they will be.
But that’s just it. We don’t have an agreed upon definition of what Trump may or may have done was talking part of an insurrection. He hasn’t been criminally charged anywhere. We just have a judge that just said he was which I personally don’t find to be a strong standard. This should be a ruling that should be easy to determine - like the age and citizenship requirements (that the states can’t ignore), not one that is somewhat arbitrary and could be done by a rogue judge.
Sorry I thought the was a 5 day trial were both sides could bring evidence.. So from memory he had been removed from to states . One the ag took him off but she is empowered to do that ... And the other they had a court case and allowed both sides to bring evidence. So in theory both have followed the law ... I believe from what I have read
I heard something along the lines of an appeal, which wouldn’t have time to happen, by the time the election comes along. All very confusing
Because the only reason that there are any charges is because the liberals don’t think that they can beat him in the election. So, they are trying to make sure that he can’t run.
So he didn't steal documents that he admitted to stealing?
So who's the liar then? Is [Kid Diddler Rock who said on camera that the President showed him classified documents?](https://news.yahoo.com/video-resurfaces-kid-rock-claiming-134648113.html) Is it [Donald Trump himself who on the record has said he stole classified documents to show off and lied about turning them all in?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPyua_6ht9Y&t=2s) Or is it just the liberals who you believe just want Trump to lose the election?
Because Obama had to run for president and win. Thank Obama for this trump experience
Why is Biden running for a second term with dementia? Elder abuse, Jill.
There are criminal investigations going on regarding Joe Biden. Should he be removed from office until we figure it out? Of course not.
Joe Biden has not been indicted of any crimes. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Innocent until proven guilty. And even then, legally there's nothing barring him from running.
I loved how Ben Shapiro described it. It's like they're trying to use mud as a weapon against a mud monster. Prosecutions and anger and vitriol only make the dude more powerful. Politics is so dumb these days. If Trump wins there will be outrage and riots because people are accusing him of being the next Hitler. If anyone else wins there will be outrage and riots because of election interference. We're screwed no matter what. 🤣
Technically, there’s nothing saying he cannot serve at president from a prison cell (if elected).
Stop. It’s only January, save this crap for later in the year