If so, then why?
You’d think the bad publicity alone would be enough to destroy any chance of election. You’d think.
Can Trump still run for president now that he's a convicted felon?
Submitted 5 months ago by dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de to [deleted]
Comments
symthetics@lemmy.world 5 months ago
BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 5 months ago
Yeah, one would really think
Jackthelad@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
fubbernuckin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
radix@lemmy.world 5 months ago
But his supporters don’t do any such thing as “thinking.”
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Haha, if only
jj4211@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
beefbaby182@lemmy.world 5 months ago
You’d think…
…but what does the government have?
OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
madcaesar@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Delusional@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Like republicans do consistently.
Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
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.
ARk@lemm.ee 5 months ago
I feel as if I’ve seen this before…
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Something something birth certificate?
OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I don’t know what you’re referencing, sorry if im a bit dense haha
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yup! Because that’s the law.
LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 5 months ago
So felons can run for president, they just can’t vote for who they want though?
meeeeetch@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Debs ran from prison (for the high crime of telling people that WWI was none of our business and people shouldn’t enlist to get turned toa pink mist in Belgium) in 1920
As for voting as a felon, that varies state to state. I don’t think there’s anyplace that allows people to vote from prison, but quite a few states let convicted felons vote once they’ve completed their sentence and any parole that follows it (and in some states, pay additional fines, which sounds a bit like a poll tax to me, but I’m not one of our nine kritarchs, so what do I know about that sort of thing?)
As for people running for office when they couldn’t vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton ran for office well before she could have voted, and the first woman elected to Congress (Jeanette Rankin) was elected in 1916, several years before women’s suffrage was added to the constitution, though her state, Montana, had allowed women to vote already.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Sadly, Florida, where Trump lives, defers to the State of conviction, and in NY, as long as you aren’t currently in prison, you can vote.
dhork@lemmy.world 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.de 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 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 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.
djsoren19@yiffit.net 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@midwest.social 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.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
We do too trust me
hperrin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yep, cause the constitution doesn’t forbid felons from running for president.
iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 5 months ago
It forbids them from ever voting again though.
hperrin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
dudinax@programming.dev 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.
LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’ll take things that’ll never happen for $100
clueless_stoner@feddit.nl 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.
beefbaby182@lemmy.world 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 5 months ago
I wonder if the secret service would need to be locked in the cell with him.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 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.)
ifGoingToCrashDont@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Cohen did time for the exact same crime
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.)
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 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.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That constitutional amendment being the 14th
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 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 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.
takeheart@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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).
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 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 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.
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
I just don’t get how someone convicted for ELECTION FRAUD can still be a presidential candidate
snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Convicted felons can’t vote so he can’t vote for himself. 🤣
higgsboson@dubvee.org 5 months ago
Nope. New York law is that felons are only kept from voting while incarcerated. And since FL law refers to the other States for their residents, Trump will be able to vote for himself, unless he is behind bars.
Mostly_Harmless_Variant@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
DarkGamer@kbin.social 5 months ago
Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. He received 914,191 votes (3.4 percent), a slightly smaller percentage than he had won in 1912, when he received 6 percent, the highest number of votes for a Socialist Party presidential candidate in the United States. During his time in prison, Debs wrote a series of columns deeply critical of the prison system. They appeared in sanitized form in the Bell Syndicate and were published in his only book, Walls and Bars, with several added chapters. It was published posthumously.
AIhasUse@lemmy.world 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.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Theres no law saying he cant
LesserAbe@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Airbud
stinerman@midwest.social 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 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.
RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
learnconlaw.com/78-the-disqualification-clause
Maybe. It’s complicated
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He can, because there’s no law against it. Probably nobody thought there’d ever need to be!
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
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?
Pronell@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
essell@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 months ago
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.
Boozilla@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Alimentar@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Actually to play devil’s advocate, 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
pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Cant vote either
YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 5 months ago
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.
kautau@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Agreed. There are situations where it totally makes sense to have a felon run for president. This isn’t one of them
not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.ee 5 months ago
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.
dhork@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He’s a Florida resident now, but I believe they also take away the right to vote for felons until their sentence is complete.
jj4211@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Ha, fair point.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 months ago
I find it while that a felon can’t vote, but they could run for office.
BassaForte@lemmy.world 5 months ago
A felon also loses their 2nd amendment rights.
LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s one less vote for him, at least
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s all down to state vs federal powers. States have the power to decide how voting happens in their state, within limits set by the Constitution. They can ban felons, or not.
beefbaby182@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If a convicted felon loses their right to vote, they should not be allowed to run for president.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 months ago
They would make protesting Israel a felony so fucking fast
SickofReddit@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
sanguinepar@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He can’t pardon himself for this one, it’s a State level crime, not a Federal one.