If so, then why?

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Yup! Because that’s the law. The original idea was to keep people in power from being able to outmaneuver their opponents by having them arrested. That was back when politicians and corporations had some level of public accountability though.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    5 months ago

    The Constitution spells out who is eligible to run for President, and does not say criminals are ineligible. It’s as simple as that.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

      • wagesj45@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • Wolfeh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            5 months ago

            I exercise the right to bare arms as often as possible, and my farmer’s tan is proof of that.

          • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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

            • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah it’s because Americans are fucking terrible at governing.

        The vast, vast majority of Americans do not care about their elected officials. Most do not even know who they are, and just vote based on party affiliation or don’t vote at all. Our government structure also fundamentally doesn’t work, and we would be far better served adopting a parliamentary system like the rest of the developed world, but nobody cares enough to do anything. Our courts are corrupt thanks to Donald Trump, gerrymandering means our elections are hardly fair, the list goes on.

        America has an apathetic government that accomplishes very little and is easily captured by hostile forces because it is exactly the level of government Americans are willing to put in the effort for.

      • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.)

    some more info

  • AvaddonLFC ☄️ 🤘@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    yes, felons can campaign for president and be elected. technically it’s even legal for the president to be locked behind bars while serving.

    • Sean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      The sad part is that despite being a convicted felon he will most likely never see the inside of a jail cell.

    • sygnius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I wonder if the secret service would need to be locked in the cell with him.

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

  • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Question: How the shit does the US legal system claim that “High crimes and Misdemeanors” disqualifies someone from being President, but 34 FELONIES is ok?

    Answer: because the people in charge don’t care.

    I’m glad he’s been convicted but any idiot can see that this should disqualify him.

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes. The “why” is that in 1787 it was unthinkable that a felon would be elected President by the Electoral College. The electors wouldn’t bother voting for a felon.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It wasn’t inconceivable to the founding fathers, they specifically excluded it from the Constitution. Felons should be allowed to run for office. It’s a good thing.