The U.S. Constitution does not prevent convicted felons from holding the office of the President or a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. Individuals who have been convicted of sedition, seditious conspiracy, treason, conspiracy to defraud the United States or selling information on national defense may not run for federal office. Cities and States may prevent convicted felons from holding statewide and local offices.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FMNPCK2yrs2Y
If someone has a criminal record, they can not be as easily trusted as someone who has committed a crime. If someone has committed a crime, they should not represent our country.
@9nlm4vr1310mos10MO
Why does Trump oppose a criminal running for president if he is one himself?
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@97KFKCF2yrs2Y
The voters have the right to choose with their votes in that election whether or not it disqualifies him from office. The government shouldn't ban anyone from running, voters have the right to vote against them.
@B2WVBGG2mos2MO
A "No" answer here creates an incentive for fake convictions and for banning political movements you don't like. No significant number of people think that both Eugene Debs and Donald Trump should have been kept from running.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
@9FNCP6ZIndependent2yrs2Y
If future felons know that voting will be one of the privileges that they will never have if they are convicted, this migh is r people from committing crimes
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office
@9GN5KWP1yr1Y
Yes, as long as they’ve finished serving their sentence and parole, the crime wasn’t committed in office, and the crime isn’t sexual, financial, or violent in nature. Also disqualify politicians under investigation for a crime.
@93ZN5DW3yrs3Y
No, except for Donald Trump, who has been the victim of way too many politicized witch hunts - Donald Trump should be allowed to run for any office regardless of the biased results of the Fake Jan 6 institutional witch hunt
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 7mos7MO
That's completely unfair:
@Patriot-#1776Constitution7mos7MO
(1) No one is below the law, either. Political opposition should not be persecuted or we are no longer a free county.
(2) All or nothing thinking is stupid and imprudent, there is nuance to most situations. And this guy is only saying that people who are falsely convicted for political purposes should be allowed to run.
(3) Trump's guilt verdict was decided by a rigged Kangaroo Court run by a Far-Left lunatic, funded by George Soros, whose campaign promise was to lock Trump up.
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 7mos7MO
Please provide a reference for:
“(3) Trump's guilt verdict was decided by a rigged Kangaroo Court run by a Far-Left lunatic, funded by George Soros, whose campaign promise was to lock Trump up.”
I am not saying that political opposition should be persecuted, in fact I think Trump and other criminal candidates should be allowed to run. You say we should not persecute political opposition as well, yet you support a candidate that will “order [his] government to deny entry to all communists and all Marxists” if elected.
I admit I did not grasp that this answer was about political persecution only; thank you for clarifying that.
Finally, about this apparent "Kangaroo Court," I must ask for something to back this up. Where did you hear this at?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution7mos7MO
Unfortunately you may have to pay to see this, but George Soros outright admits in the leftist Wall Street Journal news that he is funding "reform prosecutors" like Alvin Bragg, who is mentioned. This is a well known high-profile Democrat mega-donor whose leftist political leanings are no secret. George Soros, who is in bed with the regime, bought himself a prosecutor to take down his political opposition. He's just coming out and saying it here.
@JackrabbitChris7mos7MO
Political opposition should indeed be protected, but that doesn't mean we should give a free pass to anyone claiming persecution. Nuance is crucial, so let's apply it to your points. Take Richard Nixon, for example. He was pardoned to avoid further division, but his crimes were real. Should we have allowed him to run again, arguing that his prosecution was politically motivated?
If we're talking about nuance, then let's be consistent. Not every conviction is a witch hunt. By discrediting the justice system wholesale, we risk undermining the rule of law itself. How do you propose we discern genuine political persecution from legitimate legal accountability without compromising the integrity of our legal system?
"No, except for (candidate I like)"
@9J5D9FW1yr1Y
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
If a charge sinks in it is because he actually committed the crime, it is not a witch-hunt, and he openly plans to actually do so HIMSELF when he gets into office, as he has openly and loudly stated. Under his administration, independent executive agencies will become his, and that ESPECIALLY includes the DOJ, so who’s actually trying to go for a witch-hunt here?
Have you read the Bill of Rights, prohibiting seizure of private property, searching without a warrant, etc, as done at Mar-A-Lago, or the Amendments prohibiting punishment without a fair trial, which can scarcely be interpreted as a court packed unanimously by people who hate your guts? Or do you simply not care...?
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Mar-a-Lago had a warrant, it was not a seizure as much as an investigation, and he was not punished as he is STILL in court for said documents being found in the house. The documents were 13,000 in number, many including nuclear-related information, and info on national security interests. He pled not guilty to over 35 charges, and still remains in court, with the Biden Administration trying to stay as far away from the case as possible as a show of peace. You think the DOJ is weaponized? There’s little proof in that direction, but regardless, wait until you hear what trump wants to do with the entire DOJ once he gets back himself.
If the DOJ isn't weaponised, why did it shield Hunter Biden by preventing social media users from sharing the laptop information, with the stated intent of rigging the 2020 election by inhibiting the free circulation of information for the sake of the Biden campaign? Why, despite Biden being found to by directly involved in multiple dealings with Ukrainian businesses with which he possibly shared sensitive government information, has the President not been as thoroughly investigated as Donald Trump? Why did Al Gore never get investigated for denying the results of the 2000 election, or… Read more
@9nlm4vr1310mos10MO
He is guilty on all 34 counts if you are not aware.
@9nlm4vr1310mos10MO
“Trump, absolutely.”
Trump is a madman.
Yes, as long as they’ve finished serving their sentence, the crime wasn’t sexual, violent, or financial in nature, and it wasn’t committed in office. Also disqualify politicians under investigation for a crime.
@9HSSV4P1yr1Y
No, and disallow politicians who have a lot of legal issues and have a criminal record. Politicians convicted of felonies should NOT be allowed to run for office at all. But Donald Trump should be allowed to because the democrats do whatever they can to make him look bad.
@8HJZ39Z4yrs4Y
Minor crimes such as underage drinking and stupid things like that should be allowed but nothing major (rape, pedophilia, etc)
@8LBSJPF4yrs4Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
Yes, but all convictions and sentences must be made public knowledge
@9DCSVZT 2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as it wasn't a violent felony.
@8J7KX624yrs4Y
Yes, but only certain crimes. If they are "white collar" crimes they have no business in a position of power where they can do more of that.
Drug possession or speeding, clearly shouldn't prevent someone from holding office.
Violent or sexual assualt convictions OR DUIs should not be allowed to run for office.
Yes, as long as the crime was not a violent or sexual felony
Yes, but only if it wasn’t a violent, sexual, financial, or felony crime, if they’ve finished serving their sentence and parole, and if the crime wasn’t committed while in any office.
@8K94YGT4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and all details related to the crime(s) are released to the public
@8TNZ6YL4yrs4Y
Serving a sentence isn't enough. At the same time, people shouldn't be forever bound by the mistakes of their past. Since we're talking about running for government office, I think it would be important to ensure that there's a set period of time where a person doesn't reoffend before they go into office. Maybe it's 3 years for local and 5 for federal with a clear path available for what's expected. There may also be times on the local level where if a person is meeting the markers on this path they can be fast-tracked through the system.
@B49QRWJ1wk1W
If the crimes are real and not a hoax to take down political opponents, then the answer is No. They should not run for office. If the politician was wrongfully accused in order to gain political advantage, then those involved should be charged with treason and the politician should be granted the right to run.
@B48C66Z2wks2W
The 14th amendment specifically restricts people who have "rebelled" against the U.S. a position in government.
@B46RDV42wks2W
It depends on the situation and crimes that one has been convicted for, as well as the manner of which the person was convicted.
@B46LX6SIndependent2wks2W
i don't think so depending on the severity of the crime, if it's a felony no absolutely not, but if it's a mis demeanor then yes
@B45BYBT2wks2W
They should be allowed to hold office unless convicted of a immoral crime such as: murder, manslaughter, rape, ponzi schemes, DUI's etc.
@B43LLHNRepublican2wks2W
If it is obvious that the crime does not stand and that it was a set up in an attempt to sabotage a campaign, yes.
@B42SHY73wks3W
I definitely think if you commit a felony you should not be allowed to run for office if every other felon in America if not allowed to have a government job
@B3XQCNCConstitution3wks3W
Yes, as long as they have finished their serving sentence, did community services, and waited for their criminal background to be clean again
@B3VMHS74wks4W
Yes, there is nowhere in the constitution that states a criminal conviction should bar someone from running for office.
@B3TKJ964wks4W
I believe if a personal had committed a sexual, felony,financial, or violent crime, or committed a crime while in office, they should not be allowed to run for office.
@B3S7THS4wks4W
Yes, as long as thety have finished serving their sentence, it was not committed while they were in office, while they are under investigation, and it was not a felony, violent, financial, or secual crime.
@B3RYRHG4wks4W
yes, if they were duly punished One recent politician was convicted but their sentence was postponed on wining election.
@B3QM2V94wks4W
Yes as long as they didn't murder someone outside of self defense and don't have any sex charges like 290s
@B3P4HVT1mo1MO
If a politican that was convicted based on an actual crime and not a politically motivated conviction, than no.
@B3NPQWV1mo1MO
If the crime that they are convicted of is a very serious one that can lead to death or other serious things and not only that but the ones accusing him/her has enough proof to have a good case then No. If not and its a little crime then yes. Americans will still get to vote if they are worthy of the presidential spot or not.
No, our public officials should ALWAYS be model citizens who are well equipped with the moral & ethical capacity to lead by example.
@ThunderRoseIndependent 1mo1MO
Yes, as revolutionaries of dictatorial governments should be allowed to run under the notion of benefiting the people.
@B3MP6C61mo1MO
Yes but it depends on the situation of not only the crime but rather or not prosecution was from political retaliation
@B3H8PHJ 1mo1MO
Yes, but the specific crimes that determine ineligibility should correspond with whoever cannot vote
@B3KC9DL1mo1MO
Yes, and depends on the crime if it was bad enough they shouldn't be running they probably will not get elected
@B2J5C7VLibertarian 2mos2MO
This question is not valid since the DOJ and the FBI have both been proven without a doubt to be corrupt and politically motivated.
@B2GWG5TJustice party member3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence and long as it was not a felony, violent, and sexual crime
@B2G8MYL3mos3MO
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or sexual. The workforce also needs reform to stop discrimination of individuals who have been convicted of a crime.
@B2G39Z93mos3MO
I think post politicians are already committing crimes anyway and the media and gov hides it. No matter my opinion it will still happen
@B2DFYZW3mos3MO
No, if they're is such a proof that the crime was violent in nature, or that their was financial benefit to a substantial degree.
@B2C7JBJ3mos3MO
If a judge officially sentences a politician to serve time in prison for their crime, they are convicted and should not be allowed to run. However, when facts are manipulated and word games are played the truth is not being told and the politician should have a right to run for office.
@amydumler 3mos3MO
No but only relevant if conviction upheld after appeal. An initial conviction in a lower court prior to appeal should not count.
@B2B3DCM3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they are not currently on probation or parole, the crime wasn't committed in office, the crime wasn't violent, financial, sexual, or a Federal offence.
@B28ZXZV3mos3MO
It depends. But I'm anti-democratic. I don't believe it is the best form of governance. I would prefer monarchy or anarcho-capitalism
@B284JTHRepublican3mos3MO
Depends on the crime, but no one under investigation or awaiting trial should be eligible to run for office.
@B27RBJL3mos3MO
Depends on the crime and the situation. For misdemeanors, yes. But anyone who is being investigated for a crime or is on trial should not be allowed to run.
Yes- but with restrictions to avoid activist judges/lawmakers convicting people to prevent them from being in politcs
@B24K37K4mos4MO
depends on the crime because if its a crime like j-walking then no but if its a serious crime then no
@B24D5LP4mos4MO
Mostly no, and don't allow it if they are under investigation. But there might need to be exceptions depending on what the crime was and if they've done what was required of them to make penance.
@B23YYX9 4mos4MO
Yes, if it wasn't a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime along with (Individuals who have been convicted of sedition, seditious conspiracy, treason, conspiracy to defraud the United States or selling information on national defense may not run for federal office.) what is already stated.
@B23Q7R94mos4MO
Yes, as long as it wasn't committed while in office, and they're sentence has been served before them running
@B225G2PIndependent4mos4MO
Regardless, our government currently participates in lawfare, so the criminal status of some politicians is irrelevant.
@9ZYNHQ4 4mos4MO
Yes, unless the crime has been confirmed to have stopped a certain amount of time before running and if the crimes aren't major crimes (minor crimes such as some DUIs, some Addictions, parking fines, etc.)
@9ZYZQ634mos4MO
As long as it does not impede how this person's actions will affect the nation, we should be fine. So this person can commit tax fraud and be fine, but not if they committed murder.
@9ZYNHQ4 4mos4MO
No, unless the crime has been confirmed to have stopped a certain amount of time before running and if the crimes aren't major crimes (minor crimes such as some DUIs, some Addictions, parking fines, etc.)
@9ZY6FQ5Libertarian 4mos4MO
Yes, I think they should be able to run for office as long as the crime committed didn't jeopardize the United States' sovereignty , harm a large number of American citizens, or egregiously go against the United States constitution.
@9ZXV66P4mos4MO
As long as felons aren't allowed to vote, politicians who've committed crimes shouldn't be allowed to run either.
@9ZXCV6VWomen’s Equality4mos4MO
I think they can run for office if they've changed for the better. But I also think if people who have convicted crimes can't vote or find any jobs then they shouldn't be able to run for president.
@9ZWRZJM 4mos4MO
Yes, to preserve the voice of the people and prevent any possible law-fare or weaponization of the DOJ. Let the people decide. I trust they are smart enough.
@9ZRTSRF4mos4MO
This is about Trump's lawfare, which was politically driven. If a crime can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then yes the candidate should be barred, but never from weaponized cases handled in deep red / blue districts
@9ZPMNMM5mos5MO
Yes because politicians, specifically the president, have immunity by default for serving their country.
@9ZNFK4Y5mos5MO
Absolutely not, felons should be kept from running for office. They should face the consequences for there crimes just like other criminals.
Yes, but only as long as whatever crime they committed is accurately and ethically portrayed to the public. Eugene Debs for example was a felony offender and hardly a dangerous person.
@9ZMBCKCIndependent 5mos5MO
Yes, because the voters should be the ultimate judge of whether being a convicted felon should be in office.
@9ZJYGFD5mos5MO
If they committed a crime that wasn't treasonous/directly hurting the country (embezzlement, treason, corruption, etc.) then yes.
@9ZHNJQC5mos5MO
As long as it's not an insurrection. However, depending on the severity of the crime, I would be cautious to vote for them.
@9ZGX3DBProgressive5mos5MO
Yes, as disallowing it could be a slippery slope that could lead to the silencing of government opposition through imprisonment.
@9ZDHGHP5mos5MO
Yes, if they have had no crime issues for as long as they have been on the outside as they were in prison
@p1nkp1x1edragon5mos5MO
Yes, if it was not a felony, financial, violent, or sexual crime and the sentence has been completed at least 10 years before running.
@9Z9L7HP 5mos5MO
I feel like there should be some kind of system in place for felons of all kinds to be able to go and prove themselves in order to receive their rights back. I know many reformed felons that should be granted their rights back but there should be some kind of class or something where they get certified that they have their rights return to them
@9Y53XMQIndependent5mos5MO
Yes as long as they've completed their sentence and this isn't a pattern for them. More serious offenses such as death, most likely no.
@9Y2ZGDBLibertarian5mos5MO
Yes as long the crime was not a federal, violent, financial, or sexual crime. The crime also shouldn't be committed while they are in any political office.
It should be banned in the case of political crimes (like treason, election fraud etc.) and severe violent crimes (like murder, rape etc.).
@9XYTSJK5mos5MO
It is dependent on the severity of the crime. If a criminal trial is needed, then yes. If a civil trial is needed, then no.
@9XWTQ22Republican5mos5MO
yes, the only type of crime that should revoke a person from office is a felony, and if a felony has happened, the person should be rehabilitated and tested for wellness.
@9XWSW4VWorking Family5mos5MO
If their crimes resulted in no death or sexual crimes, this is a nation based on innocent until PROVEN guilty. Investigate the them like no other, keep tabs on ALL activity, but people can change. And people deserve second chances. I need proof of crime in court to give a "go ahead" on executive action being made in a person life by the state.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
