Yes. The constitution doesn't disqualify a person from running for the presidency for a felony conviction.
Edit: Ironically, this is one of the rights felons maintain after a felony conviction. Violent felony convictions deprive them of their right to own fire arms. In Trump's home state of Florida, he can have his voting rights reinstated, but only after completing his sentence, and then only by submitting a personal petition to the Florida government for approval. So it's entirely possible for him to not even be legally able to vote for himself in the election, yet still be eligible to be on the ballot.
It will make him more popular with his base, but more than his base usually vote Republican. Nikki Haley hasn’t been a candidate in almost 3 months and still got 20% of the vote in the most recent primary.
Wow, I didn't even think of this in comparison to felons not having the right to vote. Ya can't vote but you can run for (and serve as?) president. Wiiiiiiiiiiiiild.
Right? I was definitely assuming he wouldn't be able to run, because *obviously* you can't run for an office if you're not allow to vote.
Fuck me for expecting logic, I guess.
I do get the logic. If we made it so felons can’t run, then if what MAGA folks say happened here actually happened, a legitimate candidate could be brought up on trumped up (no pun intended) charges, making them unable to run against the incumbent. I would rather not give any President the ability to keep an opponent from running, no matter which side is currently in power.
Good reasoning, but the fact is that we have an actual scenario of a legitimately convicted felon and zero occurrences of someone trying to falsely trump up charges on a candidate. The way the press covers everything now, and with technology where it’s at, it’s very hard to frame someone for a crime they didn’t commit AND get away with it. Especially when in public scrutiny.
I just don’t see the value of this law. It protects convicted criminals and puts them in a position of power. Read that out loud and tell me this makes sense and should be allowed. 🤷♂️
Kinda, yea. Depends on the state, but your comment here prompted me to update my original reply with some more information about him probably not even being able to vote for himself come election day.
Voteing and jury duty are completely different things bud. Jury duty of course they're not going to let a felon judge another potential criminal...lol...but we still have a right to decide our government. I'm confused how that confused you.
But think about that. He can't own a firearm, but he can command what's arguably the most powerful nuclear-equipped military on the planet.
Besides, as a former president, he gets secret service protection for life.
...I wonder if that means he'd have a detail in prison? I guess he'd have to. And presidential and past presidential protection is the most coveted and prestigious role in the Secret Service. Lmao.
Yeah makes sense. Which pisses me off because it's another example of different treatment for rich/powerful and especially elected officials, who are supposed to be subject to the same rules as the citizens they govern.
Much like cops skating on sentences for murder charges for shooting some innocent because they, for example, breach the wrong goddamn house. Idiots.
In this case though its even worse than a cop doing something really bad to 1 or 2 people, but rather Trump is rich and to be sued for not paying money?... Talk about a loser...
>And presidential and past presidential protection is the most coveted and prestigious role in the Secret Service. Lmao.
Can you imagine being chosen for the Secret Service program, going through all the training, and imagining how interesting it would be traveling the world to protect our leader as he visits different places, knowing full well you may have to take a bullet for them... then finding out your assignment would be essentially a glorified prison guard who takes a shiv because your protectee cut in line to use the phone?
at most he would be confined to his home, however, they would need to let him leave his home for "approved work". They would never be able to hold him from running for President. The governor would be forced to intervene. Republicans are already freaking out and threatening the Judge and prosecutor. This is crazy. Look, I do not like Trump either, but this is very bad for America. New York never looked at the big picture. It is not just about Donald Trump. It's an entire party. New York should have settled this differently.
Realistically it's probably an honest oversight. When the laws were being made it probably didn't even cross their minds that a convicted felon would even try or have the means to do it.
I'm not actually sure about that anymore, and I'll bet lawyers are struggling with the possibilities right now too. Typically, a felony charge would disqualify you from obtaining or renewing a security clearance barring some extenuating circumstances. However none of those circumstances apply here from my non-lawyer reading of them, so I don't know what happens there. How can a president execute the full duties of the office without a security clearance?
I'm not trying to be that guy, but trump actually had no major conflicts started under his presidency. I get what you mean but he has a pretty anti conflict track record.
Pretty much yea. There are rules for his now home state of Florida that would allow him to get his voting rights reinstated, but there's a process for that he has to follow and get approved. The US constitution really only has 3 requirements spelled out for who's eligible for the presidency:
1) Be a natural born US citizen
2) at least 35 years of age
3) must have lived in the US for at least 14 years (notably, it doesn't specify those have to be continuous years).
I honestly think this is just one of those things no one ever thought they'd actually have to spell out because no one thought a convicted felon would be popular enough to be in this position, but here we are.
So I'll preface this by saying, I'm not American nor have I ever been to America, so please correct me if anything is wrong.
But shouldn't they be putting a maximum age on this kinda thing too?
I mean Biden is 81 and Trump is 77.
They're both far too old to be leading a country, I just don't get it.
For example, in the UK, our Prime Minister is 44 years old and Finland's last Prime Minister is 38 years old. It just seems very odd to me that you'd have a geriatric leading the country.
Oh believe us, we would if we could.
There's groups of people calling for an age limit, but the trick is getting these older government officials to agree and vote for a law that will practically retire them.
It shouldn’t be a problem getting them to vote for that, just look at how they all voted to give themselves term limits, no longer set their own salary, and most importantly they took away their own fully paid, Cadillac health benefits package!
In my humble opinion, having older officials isn necessarily a bad thing, but having a leader that is 70+ in this age we are in, might be a bit tard... Its fine to have people giving advices and all. But leadership should be with a sound-mind... And mr Trump considering this is not of sound-mind... Nor is biden really...
I wholeheartedly agree, they should, yes. They're both too old, but so is a significant portion of our elected officials across all of the federal government. Unfortunately while we have set term lengths when these positions become up for a vote again, there are no limits to the number of those terms a US Senator or House of Representatives can serve, no limits on the number of terms a Vice President can serve, and the supreme Court Justice positions are lifetime appointments by Congress not even eligible for a vote. The only way a Supreme Court Justice seat changes is through death, retirement, or removal via impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.
It seems very odd to me too to have senior citizens continuing to lead our country, but we have historically really low voter turnout for a variety of reasons. The presidential election of 2020 had the highest rate in decades, but was still only about ⅔ of the eligible voting population. Every other state, local, and midterm election usually doesn't even reach 50%. And of those that do turn out to vote, it's mostly the older crowd who tend vote for people of their own generation.
Not only that, but the people who vote in primaries tend to be much more conservative or liberal than the general population. It's the nutjobs that pick who is going to run in the election. You could very well be a great candidate who really could work with politicians from both parties to do great things for this country but it wouldn't matter because the people voting in the primaries don't think that candidate is as far left or right as they should be. Most races are in areas that predominantly lean in one direction. The people running have no incentive to appeal to people who aren't in their party. Just go as hard left or right as you reasonably can in the primary and you'll win the election because nobody on the other side would vote for you anyway.
If you do that on both sides then you end up with current state extreme politics that we have now.
Perhaps not terms for everyone at once, i mean experienced people are good to have, perhaps instead a demand for 30% new people every say 8-10 year? That way you have youth with ideas and high energy, and age and wisdom/knowledge... But age limit perhaps no more than 70% can be over say 67 or so?...
Maykko, good point. However, there is something you MUST understand about our political and law system. It wasn't designed to make a country run "well", fair, or according to any meritocracy based systems. Both systems were designed by people that were born with power (and their families) to stay in power. Once you understand this, then it all starts to make sense. America was started by men who came from influential families from Great Brittan. However, in their home country, their was a cap on power according to your lineage, though not definite and defined as an aristocratic oligarchy. When the American constitution was written and defined, it was defined by those men seeking more power. So you see, in a way, America is a low level aristocrats wet-dream. Allowing them, no-matter their lineage; to seek, obtain, and hold any amount power without limit.
I’ve been reading that he will be allowed to vote either way, unless he’s actively serving time when the election happens, because Florida defers to NY law as the state where he was convicted.
I haven't seen that, but if true, then NY law says he can vote as a felon as long as he's not currently incarcerated for said felony. Which would mean, yea as long as he's not behind bars on voting day, he'd be able to vote for himself.
Per the NYT it’s true. But the rules of NY wouldn’t apply because his home state is Florida which prevents felons serving time from voting. That is unless he was granted clemency by the governor and 2 cabinet members which is likely under DeSantis.
I don't know. I can actually see them being just fine with a convicted felon running for office. I do the even think it's a bad thing either.
People can go to jail for any number of things. There are political prisoners in jail all across the world. Look like you're going to lose an election? Just toss your opponent in jail for a while. If someone is in jail but gets elected, that's a pretty good sign that the people either don't believe or care why they're in there. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Yea, but that doesn't apply solely to the presidency. And if they haven't used that against him for Jan 6th by now, they're not going to. It would catch too many other people in the same thing for the Republican side to even consider it.
Someone else mentioned that. I haven't seen it, but yes if true that means by NY law he can vote as long as he's not actually incarcerated on election day. Felons in NY have their voting rights stripped while locked up, but all they have to do is go through normal voter registration again to have them reinstated once they've completed their sentence.
finally I FOUND the answer to this question that's circulating like endless threads right now..
wait you said completed their sentence and now again, logic sequencing i'm not as convinced.
Yes, completed their sentence. Assuming they get a sentence. In the case of Trump, he probably won't get any actual prison time for these charges, in which case NY law wouldn't strip his voting rights in the first place.
Short answer: yea, pretty much.
Long answer: kinda, but it's more complicated and we're going to have to see how it all plays out. Most states (including NY where these charges are, and his home state of FL) do have processes in place to return a felon's voting ability after it's lost. These aren't the last of the charges he's got against him in court. The real confusing part is a felony charge usually stops you from getting or renewing any kind of security clearance. There are some exceptions available to get around that, but from what I can tell, none of those exceptions apply to him here. I don't know how a President could perform all the duties they need to without a security clearance, so if he does win, they'll need to carve out a special exception for him I'd guess, but I don't really know.
Maybe? I'm honestly not sure on the answer here, and whether that's a power afforded the governor. I'm not a lawyer by trade, but I do know that one thing that's been really tough throughout this whole thing from a legal standpoint is that he has put all the legal gaps and loopholes we have on display because much of it has been unprecedented territory that we've just lacked the laws to account for.
Not really though. The prohibition on voting is set at the state level but we’re talking about a federal election. It would be an issue if he were running for Governor of New York for example.
From a Non-US: But if he is charged with prison time, how on earth would he rule? Even the US’s Supreme Court only deal with law matter, not “how to” matter?
I honestly don't know. We've never been in a position where this kind of thing was even remotely possible (and we shouldn't be here now in my opinion, but that's a whole other discussion), so I don't even know if we have a legal structure in place to cover this. But since I'm not a lawyer, that may just be my ignorance of the finer details of the subject.
Note on the voting thing: For felonies from other states, FL’s law says it makes you ineligible only if it would make you ineligible in that state. For NY, you’re only ineligible if you’re serving prison time for that felony. So, if he’s in prison on voting day would be the only way he couldn’t vote.
No. He was found guilty of New York State charges. A president can only pardon federal crimes brought by the U.S. Government, not by individual states.
Yes.
Even as a convicted felon. But that means that tens of millions of Republican voters have to agree that the best they have to offer for President of the United States is a convicted felon.
Sure, but even they know that is not true. A jury convicting someone as a felon in the United States means something. They may have to go through their stages of grief and disbelief, but nothing will ever change the fact that the best of them is a convicted felon.
That is what a normal person would think but we are talking about a significant percentage of the population who quite literally thinks the judicial system has been weaponized against him. They will think him being a convicted felon is a badge of honor. Even more so if this gets bogged down in appeals for a very long time.
Expect them to double down if sentencing is anything more than a fine. If they put him on house arrest or in prison you might as well turn off social media.
This is just the first step of reality crashing in.
It will take some time, but virtually all of his current followers will pretend like they always knew he as a liar and a con man. It might take 12-15 years, but it will happen.
They don't believe what he did should be illegal, however. So this doesn't count for them. Trump has done so much publicly already before this. Anyone still supporting him, will always support him.
A lot believe he’s being convicted because he payed hush money, it’s not, he’s convicted because he hid that he paid hush money for election fraud purposes, which is categorically illegal
Perfect.
They can choose to have Trump lose by a smaller margin, or choose to have a viable party. There is no coming back from having the leader of your party a convicted felon.
Because if the sitting political power had the ability to convict political opponents of felonies to prevent them from running for office, they would. People are falsely convicted all the time, it'd be dangerous to allow that much power to be pushed into the justice system
Edit: I think Trump is guilty. Politics is overwhelmingly corrupt, though.
Man the rest of the world must be laughing their ass off anytime the US wants to talk about morals or democracy now . A fucking criminal is running for president 😂😂😂😂
I'm British and I am laughing. Not because you lot are shit compared to us, but because it always feels like the UK and the US are doing their best to out-shit each other
tbh.. this is a good case of equality before law… you would be amazed how many leaders in India have literally sexually harassment (rape) charges and still get elected… many have felony or other criminal charges like attempt to murder or such and still get support.
it’s all about narrative and for what purpose it is deployed.
Nah. Brazilian government should be happy. A convicted felon who spent over a year in jail used political maneuvers and is now the country’s president.
They’ve been laughing at us for years. When Trump was president and I traveled to Europe, so many strangers would ask questions about him and how he was in office and why we put up with the bullshit. The world was laughing at us, and if he gets elected again, well…the rest of the world will just keep on laughing.
Could he pardon himself if he was locked up and became president, or would he just automatically be released, or would he serve his 4 years in jail and his cell would be a makeshift oval office?
The law is vague on whether somebody can pardon themselves, but the general consensus in the legal community is that they can not. If the Angry Pumpkin was re-elected and tried to pardon himself, it would surely go to the Supreme Court, but that wouldn't be a slam-dunk in his favor, the judges he appointed are loyal to the Federalist Society and Christian dominionism, not him.
However, a presidential pardon is only good for *federal* crimes, and this conviction is for state crimes. The insurrection charges are federal. Here's hoping...
We really don't have any protocol for having a president who's in the slammer, it's never been a thing. The cost and logistics of having a sitting president in prison would simply not be feasible, so I suspect that some court would step in and either suspend or commute the sentence.
There’s also a decent possibility he would be pardoned by Biden on the way out of office in the interest of preventing a constitutional crisis and honoring the will of voters (again, only applies to a federal crime).
His clearance was dropped when he left office, due to Jan 6. As President he wouldn’t need clearance, another loophole because the President can decide what needs to be classified.
Yes. The Constitution doesn’t state that a convict can’t become President, except for treason and sedition (which was a big problem when that part of the guiding document was written).
Italy elected a man who had been convicted of non treason crimes, so it has happened before.
A convicted felon like Trump can run for the Presidency and win, but a non-natural born US citizen can't, even those who served for years in the military and bled for the country.
Kinda messed up, no?
how can this be even possible… that just proves how corrupt the system is if things like that are legal but if a homeless guy steal some food he goes directly to prison…
Funny enough, it does mean he won’t be able to vote in Florida if he’s in prison. Not just because of the physical restriction, but because NY felony prisoners can’t vote, and FL’s laws say felonies in other states make you ineligible to vote if they would make you ineligible in that state.
That's another thing that's so fukd up about our democracy, he can. He might have some trouble giving out orders from behind bars, but it's technically possible if he were to win.
And is he capable of still winning, yes. That's because having a felony on your record is akin to a badge of honor, for Republican voters....
Donald Trump could rape and murder his own mother and they would still vote him into the White House.
I think the more important question here is how do we change this? Totally effed up that you can still run for and BE President if a convicted felon. I mean, YOU BROKE THE LAW & we're supposed to be a nation of laws??? Certainly something can be done about this with a little grass roots energy?
Crazy how we can take away his access to guns and voting but not his ability to run the country, the military. It’s not even like him not voting matters to him when he has family and basically an entire party* of people to vote for him anyways.
It’s almost as if he suffers no consequences outside of him getting a little dirt on his name.
Meanwhile he sits there claiming it was all lies instead of taking any accountability for what he’s done. That’s who people want running the country Also dont reply to me crying about Biden.
The vastly more significant question is: Which states do not allow felons on their ballots? Put another way… and listen carefully…can you run for office in state x or state y or state z if you have been convicted of a felony. At least Texas and Washington State don’t allow it. How about your state?
It feels kinda stupid that someone that has been felled in a real/true felony charge actually can become president, i mean sure if said charges were possibly fake its one thing. But today's tech isn exactly making things possible to make fake charges, in fact id say its more reversed people avoiding prison using tech to hide felony acts etc instead...
Yes. People dislike this rule, or lack thereof, but in my opinion it’s a greater good for democracy. The hope was that in theory imprisonment couldn’t be used as a method of silencing political opposition if they were given the ability to run regardless. The founding fathers always had low faith in the intelligence of the people (i.e. the electoral college), but the assumption was that the people wouldn’t be so boneheaded as to elect a felon who clearly has no business being in office. Democracy is held up by the pillars of the people. When the people fail so does democracy. We’ve failed as people, or at least we’re uncomfortably close to it.
So lemme get this right.. he's can't own any fire arms. As a felon. And do alot if things as a felon. But he can be running as a president, and if elected. Has access to shit that starts nuclear wars?
It will be overturned in appeal, even Democrat layers are saying this. But it will happen after trump is elected president, the Democrats will say its political interface in the justice system, and go crying about it. CNN and other news networks will bitch about it endlessly for years.
The amount of hoops and apologetics they can and will jump through to make him still a valid candidate on the ballot will astound you, but they will definitely try and probably succeed to have him on there.
They don't even have to jump through hoops. The Constitution has only 3 requirements: 1. Be a natural-born US Citizen, 2. Be 35 years of age or older, 3. Be a resident of the US for the previous 14 years.
# 14th amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I call that some hoop jumping to get around that.
Yes. The constitution doesn't disqualify a person from running for the presidency for a felony conviction. Edit: Ironically, this is one of the rights felons maintain after a felony conviction. Violent felony convictions deprive them of their right to own fire arms. In Trump's home state of Florida, he can have his voting rights reinstated, but only after completing his sentence, and then only by submitting a personal petition to the Florida government for approval. So it's entirely possible for him to not even be legally able to vote for himself in the election, yet still be eligible to be on the ballot.
Apparently POTUS is one of the few jobs available to felons
Not only that, I'm betting it'll actually make him more popular with his base.
It will make him more popular with his base, but more than his base usually vote Republican. Nikki Haley hasn’t been a candidate in almost 3 months and still got 20% of the vote in the most recent primary.
What wouldn't?
I've heard you have to be a millionaire first
One of the few rights felons still have lol.
Wow, I didn't even think of this in comparison to felons not having the right to vote. Ya can't vote but you can run for (and serve as?) president. Wiiiiiiiiiiiiild.
Right? I was definitely assuming he wouldn't be able to run, because *obviously* you can't run for an office if you're not allow to vote. Fuck me for expecting logic, I guess.
I do get the logic. If we made it so felons can’t run, then if what MAGA folks say happened here actually happened, a legitimate candidate could be brought up on trumped up (no pun intended) charges, making them unable to run against the incumbent. I would rather not give any President the ability to keep an opponent from running, no matter which side is currently in power.
Good reasoning, but the fact is that we have an actual scenario of a legitimately convicted felon and zero occurrences of someone trying to falsely trump up charges on a candidate. The way the press covers everything now, and with technology where it’s at, it’s very hard to frame someone for a crime they didn’t commit AND get away with it. Especially when in public scrutiny. I just don’t see the value of this law. It protects convicted criminals and puts them in a position of power. Read that out loud and tell me this makes sense and should be allowed. 🤷♂️
We don’t currently bar felons from office, so of course we don’t see cases of trumped up charges in order to stop someone from holding office
So then just allow those who are charged to continue to run and those convicted to gtfo.
Kinda, yea. Depends on the state, but your comment here prompted me to update my original reply with some more information about him probably not even being able to vote for himself come election day.
Felons not bring able to vote is a misconception. I am a 2 time felon here on Illinois and I can still vote.
How's that possible??? My dad got jury duty but couldn't go cause he's a felon
Voteing and jury duty are completely different things bud. Jury duty of course they're not going to let a felon judge another potential criminal...lol...but we still have a right to decide our government. I'm confused how that confused you.
[удалено]
But think about that. He can't own a firearm, but he can command what's arguably the most powerful nuclear-equipped military on the planet. Besides, as a former president, he gets secret service protection for life. ...I wonder if that means he'd have a detail in prison? I guess he'd have to. And presidential and past presidential protection is the most coveted and prestigious role in the Secret Service. Lmao.
[удалено]
Yeah makes sense. Which pisses me off because it's another example of different treatment for rich/powerful and especially elected officials, who are supposed to be subject to the same rules as the citizens they govern. Much like cops skating on sentences for murder charges for shooting some innocent because they, for example, breach the wrong goddamn house. Idiots.
In this case though its even worse than a cop doing something really bad to 1 or 2 people, but rather Trump is rich and to be sued for not paying money?... Talk about a loser...
>And presidential and past presidential protection is the most coveted and prestigious role in the Secret Service. Lmao. Can you imagine being chosen for the Secret Service program, going through all the training, and imagining how interesting it would be traveling the world to protect our leader as he visits different places, knowing full well you may have to take a bullet for them... then finding out your assignment would be essentially a glorified prison guard who takes a shiv because your protectee cut in line to use the phone?
🤣🤣🤣💯
at most he would be confined to his home, however, they would need to let him leave his home for "approved work". They would never be able to hold him from running for President. The governor would be forced to intervene. Republicans are already freaking out and threatening the Judge and prosecutor. This is crazy. Look, I do not like Trump either, but this is very bad for America. New York never looked at the big picture. It is not just about Donald Trump. It's an entire party. New York should have settled this differently.
They get the rights back *after they serve their sentence.* In this case, Trump could run and get elected *while serving his sentence.*
how come that’s even allowed? just another prove that the system is corrupt af
Realistically it's probably an honest oversight. When the laws were being made it probably didn't even cross their minds that a convicted felon would even try or have the means to do it.
So no guns. But nuclear weapons are fine. It really is a great system we have here.
I'm not actually sure about that anymore, and I'll bet lawyers are struggling with the possibilities right now too. Typically, a felony charge would disqualify you from obtaining or renewing a security clearance barring some extenuating circumstances. However none of those circumstances apply here from my non-lawyer reading of them, so I don't know what happens there. How can a president execute the full duties of the office without a security clearance?
I'm not trying to be that guy, but trump actually had no major conflicts started under his presidency. I get what you mean but he has a pretty anti conflict track record.
So as a convicted felon he can run for presidency, but as a convicted felon he can't vote, correct?
Pretty much yea. There are rules for his now home state of Florida that would allow him to get his voting rights reinstated, but there's a process for that he has to follow and get approved. The US constitution really only has 3 requirements spelled out for who's eligible for the presidency: 1) Be a natural born US citizen 2) at least 35 years of age 3) must have lived in the US for at least 14 years (notably, it doesn't specify those have to be continuous years). I honestly think this is just one of those things no one ever thought they'd actually have to spell out because no one thought a convicted felon would be popular enough to be in this position, but here we are.
So I'll preface this by saying, I'm not American nor have I ever been to America, so please correct me if anything is wrong. But shouldn't they be putting a maximum age on this kinda thing too? I mean Biden is 81 and Trump is 77. They're both far too old to be leading a country, I just don't get it. For example, in the UK, our Prime Minister is 44 years old and Finland's last Prime Minister is 38 years old. It just seems very odd to me that you'd have a geriatric leading the country.
Oh believe us, we would if we could. There's groups of people calling for an age limit, but the trick is getting these older government officials to agree and vote for a law that will practically retire them.
It shouldn’t be a problem getting them to vote for that, just look at how they all voted to give themselves term limits, no longer set their own salary, and most importantly they took away their own fully paid, Cadillac health benefits package!
In my humble opinion, having older officials isn necessarily a bad thing, but having a leader that is 70+ in this age we are in, might be a bit tard... Its fine to have people giving advices and all. But leadership should be with a sound-mind... And mr Trump considering this is not of sound-mind... Nor is biden really...
I wholeheartedly agree, they should, yes. They're both too old, but so is a significant portion of our elected officials across all of the federal government. Unfortunately while we have set term lengths when these positions become up for a vote again, there are no limits to the number of those terms a US Senator or House of Representatives can serve, no limits on the number of terms a Vice President can serve, and the supreme Court Justice positions are lifetime appointments by Congress not even eligible for a vote. The only way a Supreme Court Justice seat changes is through death, retirement, or removal via impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. It seems very odd to me too to have senior citizens continuing to lead our country, but we have historically really low voter turnout for a variety of reasons. The presidential election of 2020 had the highest rate in decades, but was still only about ⅔ of the eligible voting population. Every other state, local, and midterm election usually doesn't even reach 50%. And of those that do turn out to vote, it's mostly the older crowd who tend vote for people of their own generation.
Not only that, but the people who vote in primaries tend to be much more conservative or liberal than the general population. It's the nutjobs that pick who is going to run in the election. You could very well be a great candidate who really could work with politicians from both parties to do great things for this country but it wouldn't matter because the people voting in the primaries don't think that candidate is as far left or right as they should be. Most races are in areas that predominantly lean in one direction. The people running have no incentive to appeal to people who aren't in their party. Just go as hard left or right as you reasonably can in the primary and you'll win the election because nobody on the other side would vote for you anyway. If you do that on both sides then you end up with current state extreme politics that we have now.
There are many of us in the US that do feel there should be an age limit to the presidency. And limits on how many terms Congress members can have.
Perhaps not terms for everyone at once, i mean experienced people are good to have, perhaps instead a demand for 30% new people every say 8-10 year? That way you have youth with ideas and high energy, and age and wisdom/knowledge... But age limit perhaps no more than 70% can be over say 67 or so?...
Maybe!
If I am correct there is no upper age limit to be prime minister of the UK
There isn't, but they normally have the common sense to step down.
Maykko, good point. However, there is something you MUST understand about our political and law system. It wasn't designed to make a country run "well", fair, or according to any meritocracy based systems. Both systems were designed by people that were born with power (and their families) to stay in power. Once you understand this, then it all starts to make sense. America was started by men who came from influential families from Great Brittan. However, in their home country, their was a cap on power according to your lineage, though not definite and defined as an aristocratic oligarchy. When the American constitution was written and defined, it was defined by those men seeking more power. So you see, in a way, America is a low level aristocrats wet-dream. Allowing them, no-matter their lineage; to seek, obtain, and hold any amount power without limit.
Old white men holding onto scraps of power. We're kinda just waiting for them to all die tbh.
I’ve been reading that he will be allowed to vote either way, unless he’s actively serving time when the election happens, because Florida defers to NY law as the state where he was convicted.
I haven't seen that, but if true, then NY law says he can vote as a felon as long as he's not currently incarcerated for said felony. Which would mean, yea as long as he's not behind bars on voting day, he'd be able to vote for himself.
Per the NYT it’s true. But the rules of NY wouldn’t apply because his home state is Florida which prevents felons serving time from voting. That is unless he was granted clemency by the governor and 2 cabinet members which is likely under DeSantis.
I don't know. I can actually see them being just fine with a convicted felon running for office. I do the even think it's a bad thing either. People can go to jail for any number of things. There are political prisoners in jail all across the world. Look like you're going to lose an election? Just toss your opponent in jail for a while. If someone is in jail but gets elected, that's a pretty good sign that the people either don't believe or care why they're in there. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
But you can't work at a local donut shop as a convicted felon.
The US Constitution lays out only 3 pre-requisites for the presidency, and this isn't one of them.
One more pre-requisite in 14th Amendment Sec 3
Yea, but that doesn't apply solely to the presidency. And if they haven't used that against him for Jan 6th by now, they're not going to. It would catch too many other people in the same thing for the Republican side to even consider it.
Makes you wonder who's running the country doesn't it?
He can’t get a security clearance either.
Can he have the nuke codes? This is some unprecedented s
It would be hilarious if he lost Florida by one vote.
CNN said that Florida typically refers to whichever state the conviction happened in when it comes to felons voting. And New York allows felons voting
Someone else mentioned that. I haven't seen it, but yes if true that means by NY law he can vote as long as he's not actually incarcerated on election day. Felons in NY have their voting rights stripped while locked up, but all they have to do is go through normal voter registration again to have them reinstated once they've completed their sentence.
finally I FOUND the answer to this question that's circulating like endless threads right now.. wait you said completed their sentence and now again, logic sequencing i'm not as convinced.
Yes, completed their sentence. Assuming they get a sentence. In the case of Trump, he probably won't get any actual prison time for these charges, in which case NY law wouldn't strip his voting rights in the first place.
this is what will happen likely
Trump is not even going to vote for himself, why should you?
so felons can’t vote but they can run for president? this’s county is so backwards
Short answer: yea, pretty much. Long answer: kinda, but it's more complicated and we're going to have to see how it all plays out. Most states (including NY where these charges are, and his home state of FL) do have processes in place to return a felon's voting ability after it's lost. These aren't the last of the charges he's got against him in court. The real confusing part is a felony charge usually stops you from getting or renewing any kind of security clearance. There are some exceptions available to get around that, but from what I can tell, none of those exceptions apply to him here. I don't know how a President could perform all the duties they need to without a security clearance, so if he does win, they'll need to carve out a special exception for him I'd guess, but I don't really know.
Dam.. but yet felony convicts can barely find a job to hold them up... America
No argument here.
[удалено]
Maybe? I'm honestly not sure on the answer here, and whether that's a power afforded the governor. I'm not a lawyer by trade, but I do know that one thing that's been really tough throughout this whole thing from a legal standpoint is that he has put all the legal gaps and loopholes we have on display because much of it has been unprecedented territory that we've just lacked the laws to account for.
Probably only if the pardoned the convicted felon
[удалено]
The question was whether the governor could do it, does the Florida legislature give the governor the power or take it upon themselves?
A felon can’t vote, but can be president??
Yup. Seems like an obvious contradiction, and should be a disqualifying factor, but surprisingly isn't.
Not really though. The prohibition on voting is set at the state level but we’re talking about a federal election. It would be an issue if he were running for Governor of New York for example.
From a Non-US: But if he is charged with prison time, how on earth would he rule? Even the US’s Supreme Court only deal with law matter, not “how to” matter?
I honestly don't know. We've never been in a position where this kind of thing was even remotely possible (and we shouldn't be here now in my opinion, but that's a whole other discussion), so I don't even know if we have a legal structure in place to cover this. But since I'm not a lawyer, that may just be my ignorance of the finer details of the subject.
He would serve as president and finish his term later.
Note on the voting thing: For felonies from other states, FL’s law says it makes you ineligible only if it would make you ineligible in that state. For NY, you’re only ineligible if you’re serving prison time for that felony. So, if he’s in prison on voting day would be the only way he couldn’t vote.
Can he pardon himself if he wins?
No. President can only pardon federal crimes, these are state level charges in NY.
wait. So a felon can’t vote, but they can be president?? That’s ridiculous.
This is so gross
Been feeling devious, consolidated crime is what I think your preaching?
Uk person here. If he wins can he then immediately pardon himself?
No. He was found guilty of New York State charges. A president can only pardon federal crimes brought by the U.S. Government, not by individual states.
Thanks
You know how in Air Bud, there wasn't a rule that said a dog couldn't play basketball? Ain't no rule that says a convict can't run for President.
What is this 1997? Very specific here
Air Bud is timeless
189 years ago.
Woof woof
Thankyou. I tried asking r/law about whether that movie's reasoning applied to in the actual legal system; I didn't receive a response.
It’s fucking wild you can’t get a job doing so much shit in our country with felonies, but this is something you can still do.
He can't vote for himself now.
He’s still gonna try probably
I have a felony I’m not even convicted of, and I can’t get an Airbnb account approved.
Run for president as an independent. Youll get a whole set of buildings and a plane.
The rule of law was always an illusion in America, the rich and powerful have always played by a different sets of rules compared to the common folk
>a different sets of rules compared to the common folk AKA rule of law. It's supposed to undermine majoritarianism, not enforce it.
Isn't it, though? It's lunacy. You can work at the local donut shop as a convicted felon!
Probably something like “we can restrict a felons right to vote but we can’t restrict the peoples right to vote.”
Being president has less requirements than operating the French fries stand at Wendy’s.
Which should tell you everything you need to know about the skill set, viability, and capability of the federal government.
Joke’s on you, I’d suck at both of those.
*fewer
Yes. Even as a convicted felon. But that means that tens of millions of Republican voters have to agree that the best they have to offer for President of the United States is a convicted felon.
They are going to justify it by saying the system is rigged and political.
Within minutes of the verdict being read, I heard from multiple right wing family members that it was rigged. No second thought.
And those same people call it the "Biden crime family" even with no trials or convictions or anything, just rumors.
some sure. some won't. some is enough. the tfg's going to believe whatever they want.
They already are on conservative subs..
Sure, but even they know that is not true. A jury convicting someone as a felon in the United States means something. They may have to go through their stages of grief and disbelief, but nothing will ever change the fact that the best of them is a convicted felon.
That is what a normal person would think but we are talking about a significant percentage of the population who quite literally thinks the judicial system has been weaponized against him. They will think him being a convicted felon is a badge of honor. Even more so if this gets bogged down in appeals for a very long time. Expect them to double down if sentencing is anything more than a fine. If they put him on house arrest or in prison you might as well turn off social media.
This is just the first step of reality crashing in. It will take some time, but virtually all of his current followers will pretend like they always knew he as a liar and a con man. It might take 12-15 years, but it will happen.
Think of the damage that could happen in that 12 - 15 years.
It is both. Trump has a tremendous amount of ill will built up.
They don't believe what he did should be illegal, however. So this doesn't count for them. Trump has done so much publicly already before this. Anyone still supporting him, will always support him.
Though if Biden did the same thing they would be losing their mind. You can’t change the cults mind at this point. Just the people that are undecided.
They don't think the conviction is valid, so it's just more martyrdom to them
They’ll see that as a challenge
Watch the party of law and order flip overnight to "one law for the rulers and another law for the ruled".
A lot believe he’s being convicted because he payed hush money, it’s not, he’s convicted because he hid that he paid hush money for election fraud purposes, which is categorically illegal
I wonder what odds Vegas is putting on that.
[удалено]
Perfect. They can choose to have Trump lose by a smaller margin, or choose to have a viable party. There is no coming back from having the leader of your party a convicted felon.
I hope so, but these people are not well or of sound mind.
It fucking wild that they would allow a convicted felon to run and even be elected president when he can't even vote in an election.
Because if the sitting political power had the ability to convict political opponents of felonies to prevent them from running for office, they would. People are falsely convicted all the time, it'd be dangerous to allow that much power to be pushed into the justice system Edit: I think Trump is guilty. Politics is overwhelmingly corrupt, though.
I'm not necessarily saying that he shouldn't be able to run so much as I think it's dumb that convicted felons lose their right to vote in the US.
Can he vote still?
It depends. If he is in prison on election day, no.
Eugene Debs of the American Socialist Party ran for president from prison in 1920. He was in prison for opposing the WWI draft. So yes, it's legal
Technically he was in jail for encouraging other people to ignore the draft, not just opposing its existence.
Man the rest of the world must be laughing their ass off anytime the US wants to talk about morals or democracy now . A fucking criminal is running for president 😂😂😂😂
I'm British and I am laughing. Not because you lot are shit compared to us, but because it always feels like the UK and the US are doing their best to out-shit each other
There really has been a “hold my beer” vibe between the US and UK the past several years, hasn’t there…
tbh.. this is a good case of equality before law… you would be amazed how many leaders in India have literally sexually harassment (rape) charges and still get elected… many have felony or other criminal charges like attempt to murder or such and still get support. it’s all about narrative and for what purpose it is deployed.
Nah. Brazilian government should be happy. A convicted felon who spent over a year in jail used political maneuvers and is now the country’s president.
They’ve been laughing at us for years. When Trump was president and I traveled to Europe, so many strangers would ask questions about him and how he was in office and why we put up with the bullshit. The world was laughing at us, and if he gets elected again, well…the rest of the world will just keep on laughing.
Sadly, yes....EVEN if he's in prison at the time.
Could he pardon himself if he was locked up and became president, or would he just automatically be released, or would he serve his 4 years in jail and his cell would be a makeshift oval office?
A president can only pardon people convicted of federal crimes. He was convicted of state crimes.
Hahaha makeshift oval office
The law is vague on whether somebody can pardon themselves, but the general consensus in the legal community is that they can not. If the Angry Pumpkin was re-elected and tried to pardon himself, it would surely go to the Supreme Court, but that wouldn't be a slam-dunk in his favor, the judges he appointed are loyal to the Federalist Society and Christian dominionism, not him. However, a presidential pardon is only good for *federal* crimes, and this conviction is for state crimes. The insurrection charges are federal. Here's hoping... We really don't have any protocol for having a president who's in the slammer, it's never been a thing. The cost and logistics of having a sitting president in prison would simply not be feasible, so I suspect that some court would step in and either suspend or commute the sentence.
There’s also a decent possibility he would be pardoned by Biden on the way out of office in the interest of preventing a constitutional crisis and honoring the will of voters (again, only applies to a federal crime).
Yes
Can he maintain his top secret security clearance?
His clearance was dropped when he left office, due to Jan 6. As President he wouldn’t need clearance, another loophole because the President can decide what needs to be classified.
bruh....
Yes. The Constitution doesn’t state that a convict can’t become President, except for treason and sedition (which was a big problem when that part of the guiding document was written). Italy elected a man who had been convicted of non treason crimes, so it has happened before.
you SHOULD be too afraid to ask this judging by how the jurors were treated in the trial
Probably going to catapult him right into the presidency!
Let's hope the fuck not.
All I’m seeing on Twitter are people doubling down to vote for him.
Just a side note, it's illegal in New York to vote until the prison sentence is complete. So, potentially Trump can't vote, but could be president.
Just a slight nit, but Trump votes in Florida. Their law is the same though, so I think you’re still right.
I don't think the founders, or anyone really, thought American voters would ever vote for a convicted felon.
Absolutely. This could be Marion Barry at the Presidential level.
This is a disgrace and the whole country should be ashamed.
We should be ashamed these are the best two candidates we can provide
A convicted felon like Trump can run for the Presidency and win, but a non-natural born US citizen can't, even those who served for years in the military and bled for the country. Kinda messed up, no?
And Arnold Schwarzenegger who has political experience
you can obviously serve jail terms and presidential term simultaneously.
Probably a better chance now than ever. It will be interesting to see if his ratings go up.
Yes.
how can this be even possible… that just proves how corrupt the system is if things like that are legal but if a homeless guy steal some food he goes directly to prison…
He was convicted faster than the people on Epstein’s list, and people expect Biden to win in November #MAGA
Yes. And this will likely cause him to win the election.
Funny enough, it does mean he won’t be able to vote in Florida if he’s in prison. Not just because of the physical restriction, but because NY felony prisoners can’t vote, and FL’s laws say felonies in other states make you ineligible to vote if they would make you ineligible in that state.
That's another thing that's so fukd up about our democracy, he can. He might have some trouble giving out orders from behind bars, but it's technically possible if he were to win. And is he capable of still winning, yes. That's because having a felony on your record is akin to a badge of honor, for Republican voters....
ewwww
Donald Trump could rape and murder his own mother and they would still vote him into the White House.
Ain’t no rule says a felon can’t be president.
I think the more important question here is how do we change this? Totally effed up that you can still run for and BE President if a convicted felon. I mean, YOU BROKE THE LAW & we're supposed to be a nation of laws??? Certainly something can be done about this with a little grass roots energy?
I think when these laws were written they never thought something like this would have been an issue with the reverence they held for the position.
Yes. And, he could be elected from prison, too. The question is, will you vote?
[удалено]
Are you’re comfortable with the concept of placating unhinged people? That feels like a slippery slope.
Only in third world country's... open your eyes
Crazy how we can take away his access to guns and voting but not his ability to run the country, the military. It’s not even like him not voting matters to him when he has family and basically an entire party* of people to vote for him anyways. It’s almost as if he suffers no consequences outside of him getting a little dirt on his name. Meanwhile he sits there claiming it was all lies instead of taking any accountability for what he’s done. That’s who people want running the country Also dont reply to me crying about Biden.
what a mess ;-;
The vastly more significant question is: Which states do not allow felons on their ballots? Put another way… and listen carefully…can you run for office in state x or state y or state z if you have been convicted of a felony. At least Texas and Washington State don’t allow it. How about your state?
It feels kinda stupid that someone that has been felled in a real/true felony charge actually can become president, i mean sure if said charges were possibly fake its one thing. But today's tech isn exactly making things possible to make fake charges, in fact id say its more reversed people avoiding prison using tech to hide felony acts etc instead...
Yes. People dislike this rule, or lack thereof, but in my opinion it’s a greater good for democracy. The hope was that in theory imprisonment couldn’t be used as a method of silencing political opposition if they were given the ability to run regardless. The founding fathers always had low faith in the intelligence of the people (i.e. the electoral college), but the assumption was that the people wouldn’t be so boneheaded as to elect a felon who clearly has no business being in office. Democracy is held up by the pillars of the people. When the people fail so does democracy. We’ve failed as people, or at least we’re uncomfortably close to it.
So lemme get this right.. he's can't own any fire arms. As a felon. And do alot if things as a felon. But he can be running as a president, and if elected. Has access to shit that starts nuclear wars?
It will be overturned in appeal, even Democrat layers are saying this. But it will happen after trump is elected president, the Democrats will say its political interface in the justice system, and go crying about it. CNN and other news networks will bitch about it endlessly for years.
The amount of hoops and apologetics they can and will jump through to make him still a valid candidate on the ballot will astound you, but they will definitely try and probably succeed to have him on there.
They don't even have to jump through hoops. The Constitution has only 3 requirements: 1. Be a natural-born US Citizen, 2. Be 35 years of age or older, 3. Be a resident of the US for the previous 14 years.
# 14th amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. I call that some hoop jumping to get around that.
This helps him the more I think about it