Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.
“Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”
You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”
You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.
Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.
While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.
The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)
Why can a felon run for president?
Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.
“Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”
Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.
Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.
You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”
You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.
Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.
Hah. Fair enough
While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That’s definitely a good example of why it shouldn’t bar someone outright.
If felons can’t vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn’t be able to run for office.
Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela ran for president of the US?
I remember that he was the President of the US right before he died
deleted by creator
So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.
The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)
Isn’t there a bigger problem than who can run for president at that point?