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
@9FMNPCK1yr1Y
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.
@9nlm4vr138mos8MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
@9FNCP6ZIndependent1yr1Y
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.
@93ZN5DW2yrs2Y
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 5mos5MO
That's completely unfair:
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
(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 5mos5MO
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-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
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.
@JackrabbitChris4mos4MO
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
@9nlm4vr138mos8MO
He is guilty on all 34 counts if you are not aware.
@9nlm4vr138mos8MO
“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)
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.
@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 1yr1Y
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
@8TNZ6YL3yrs3Y
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.
@8K94YGT4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and all details related to the crime(s) are released to the public
@9YD7WVGRepublican2mos2MO
So none of them should be in office because Kamillia Harris was charged for not having a gun licenses while purchasing a gun
@9D5CHFN1yr1Y
They should not be able to run if they are found guilty , and are imprisoned! It should not be able to be used to interfere with elections from someone who is running against you!
@9D4X9GT1yr1Y
@8Q29L26Republican 4yrs4Y
Depending on their crime, If it's a small crime then yes. But if it's a huge crime, like murder, then obviously not.
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office as well as long as they have finished serving their sentence.
@8NKP6JT4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not violent, financial, or sexual. Felonies shouldn't matter if they've served their sentence.
@B2DFYZW5 days5D
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.
@B2C7JBJ1wk1W
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 1wk1W
No but only relevant if conviction upheld after appeal. An initial conviction in a lower court prior to appeal should not count.
@B2B3DCM2wks2W
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.
@B28ZXZV2wks2W
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
@B284JTHRepublican3wks3W
Depends on the crime, but no one under investigation or awaiting trial should be eligible to run for office.
@B27RBJL3wks3W
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
@B24K37K1mo1MO
depends on the crime because if its a crime like j-walking then no but if its a serious crime then no
@B24D5LP1mo1MO
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 1mo1MO
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.
@B23Q7R91mo1MO
Yes, as long as it wasn't committed while in office, and they're sentence has been served before them running
@B225G2PIndependent1mo1MO
Regardless, our government currently participates in lawfare, so the criminal status of some politicians is irrelevant.
@9ZYNHQ4 1mo1MO
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.)
@9ZYZQ632mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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.
@9ZXV66P2mos2MO
As long as felons aren't allowed to vote, politicians who've committed crimes shouldn't be allowed to run either.
@9ZXCV6VWomen’s Equality2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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.
@9ZRTSRF2mos2MO
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
@9ZPMNMM2mos2MO
Yes because politicians, specifically the president, have immunity by default for serving their country.
@9ZNFK4Y2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
Yes, because the voters should be the ultimate judge of whether being a convicted felon should be in office.
@9ZJYGFD2mos2MO
If they committed a crime that wasn't treasonous/directly hurting the country (embezzlement, treason, corruption, etc.) then yes.
@9ZHNJQC2mos2MO
As long as it's not an insurrection. However, depending on the severity of the crime, I would be cautious to vote for them.
@9ZGX3DBProgressive2mos2MO
Yes, as disallowing it could be a slippery slope that could lead to the silencing of government opposition through imprisonment.
@9ZDHGHP2mos2MO
Yes, if they have had no crime issues for as long as they have been on the outside as they were in prison
@p1nkp1x1edragon2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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
@9Z9KCF62mos2MO
Not if the other side is making up stories !!! Proof needs to be addressed to the American people !!
@9YN7HZBPeace and Freedom 2mos2MO
If a voter with a felony record loses their right to vote, then whoever is attempting to run should also lose their option to run for the presidency for having a record. No one is perfect and we all do things but it's unfair.
@9YN4J9JRepublican 2mos2MO
I would have said no 4 years ago. But the lawfare launched against President Trump shakes my trust in legal system.
@9YHP6MC2mos2MO
Depends on the crime. Racism/pedophilia/other violent crime/sexist/crime in office, or history of any sort of lies/manipulation/corruption should not be allowed to run for anything.
@9YHLXH22mos2MO
Yes, unless the crime violent, financial, sexual, politically motivated, or committed while in office
@9YHC2RV2mos2MO
Yes, all of our founding fathers were "criminals" so anyone that has already served one term should be allowed to serve another term
@9YGZNGH2mos2MO
If convicted felons can’t vote, they shouldn’t be allowed to run for election or work in any government service
@9YFFHFL2mos2MO
No, but depending on if it was in the past if they have a history or severity of the crime they shouldn’t be able to participate
@9YBWFRQ2mos2MO
It depends on the crime they have committed. If they have committed fraud multiple times and have many sexual assault allegations against them, as well as powerful enemies, then no, they should not become president.
@9Y7QJRVPeace and Freedom2mos2MO
It depends on the crime and it truly depends on how they react and their behavior. If the crime isn’t that bad and they have shown they have changed and they act respectful I do think they should have a chance.
@9Y69DFR2mos2MO
It depends on the nature of the crime. If it was a violent crime or felony or involve the miss use of power/resources while in office, no!
@9Y53XMQIndependent2mos2MO
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.
@9Y2ZGDBLibertarian2mos2MO
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.).
@9XYTSJK3mos3MO
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.
@9XWTQ22Republican3mos3MO
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 Family3mos3MO
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.
@9XWR7NX3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they aren't guilty and has a good background record, they should be allowed to run for office.
@9XMF65Z3mos3MO
Yes, If they want to run they can its up to the citizens weather they want to put a someone in office that convicted a crime.
@9XLKXJV3mos3MO
Yes, they can run for office and serve their sentence, but if they commit another crime again, they will not have the right to run for office.
@9XLKR223mos3MO
i think depending on what the crime. if it was terroristic or violent they should not be able to run for office but if they are in the right mind and are not going to hurt someone they shooul be able to run.
Unrelated to this question, but I need somewhere to type to bring up an important topic: I believe term limits should be established for all federal government seats, including, and not limited to, positions such as Speaker of the House, Senate, and Congress.
@9XHZG6Z3mos3MO
No but prosecution of crimes as revenge that leaves a candidate with misdemeanors that had already exceed the boundes of limitation are an exception
@9XHCVY5Republican3mos3MO
Only if there is not enough evidence to prove they did it, or if is revealed they have been falsely accused
@9XDCN7P3mos3MO
Yes as long the crime wasn’t committed while in office and it was not a violent financial or sexual crim
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
