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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
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.
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
Why does Trump oppose a criminal running for president if he is one himself?
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@97KFKCF3yrs3Y
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.
@B2WVBGG8mos8MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
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
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office
@B6LRZ792mos2MO
A politician who has committed a crime wither in office or not shouldn't be allowed to run again, as a politician they should know the law and what their supposed to do and if they feel they can break the law in either setting it shows they aren't fit to run
@B6KCDDM2mos2MO
A politician, formerly convicted of a crime should not be able to run for office. He or she that committed the crime, should be punished in a way, and have the ability to run in office removed from them.
- They chose to convict the crime, so that's on them to deal with the consequences . I say no to the answer.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
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 1yr1Y
That's completely unfair:
(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 1yr1Y
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?
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.
@JackrabbitChris1yr1Y
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)"
@9J5D9FW2yrs2Y
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
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...?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
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
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
He is guilty on all 34 counts if you are not aware.
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
“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.
@9HSSV4P2yrs2Y
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.
@8HJZ39Z5yrs5Y
Minor crimes such as underage drinking and stupid things like that should be allowed but nothing major (rape, pedophilia, etc)
@9FJDPVD2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as the crimes were not committed while in office, are not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, and they are not under investigation while running.
@9DCSVZT 2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as it wasn't a violent felony.
@8J7KX625yrs5Y
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 all convictions and sentences must be made public knowledge
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.
@8LBSJPF5yrs5Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
@8NKP6JT5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not violent, financial, or sexual. Felonies shouldn't matter if they've served their sentence.
@8K94YGT5yrs5Y
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.
@9BBF5T42yrs2Y
Yes if they were wrongly convicted
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or sexual in nature
@8HKRDZR5yrs5Y
It depends. If it was a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, or if they're under investigation for such, then no. If it was a misdemeanor or other minor crime, or if the investigation/trial for a worse crime proves that they did not commit the crime, then yes.
@B7L26TW2 days2D
No, a criminal conviction should be an automatic disqualification for anyone attempting to run for office.
@B7JVTFR5 days5D
Depends. The "as long as it was not..." option and the "disallow politicians under investigation..." are both close to my view, but both can also be unjustly weaponized.
@B7JSZPX5 days5D
No, and they shouldn't be allowed to run if an investigation is taking place, however we must insure that they actually committed a crime and aren't being arrested for political sake.
@B7HQVG56 days6D
As long as they haven't done the crime while in office, or a sexual, felony, financial, or violent crime. Depending on the severity of said crime, and what their position was when it was committed, I feel should determine if they should be allowed.
@B7HDJWG7 days7D
Yes, as long as they fully served their sentence and go through more extreme procautions before they go into office and has been at least 5 years after the incident before they run.
@B7GBHPL1wk1W
Yes depending on the nature of the offense and the time since it occurred. The people get to decide whether to continue to hold them to account or not.
No, we should disallow politicians to run as long as their properly investigate and convict them of their crimes to make sure there isn’t any bias information in there.
@B7F437N2wks2W
Yes, as long as the sentence has been served and citizens who have served their sentence must also have the ability to vote as well too.
@B7F24T62wks2W
Yes, so long as not violent felony, treason, or committed while in office. But generally people should be allowed to vote for who they want with limited restriction.
@B7D5FRW2wks2W
If someone is the right person to fit for the country I think that they should be able to run no matter the past unless their crime has something to do with the job of running a president cause then he wouldn't be able to be trusted.
@B7D488C2wks2W
only if it was not committed while in office AND was not an abusive of power crime (such as sexual assault+, or white-collar theft)
@B7BSZRY2wks2W
Yes, mainly due to my distrust in the government and how clearly both sides want to and try to use the justice system against one another
@B7BPXFW2wks2W
Yes, the people should have the power to elect who they please, I trust the voters to decide what disqualifies somebody
@B7BF4LB2wks2W
If they wouldn’t qualify to receive the most clandestine security clearance (by the normal standards) then they should not be able to run for office.
@B7B6J972wks2W
It depends if they became a good person who can be trusted yea but if they aren't then I don't think they should
@B79WBLC2wks2W
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or a sexual crime, nor if it was committed while in office.
@B79Q5FW2wks2W
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, they finished their sentence, are not currently under investigation and the crime was not committed while in a public office.
@B7972CT2wks2W
only if he was political prisoner or activist, otherwise no, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@B78C3Q83wks3W
Typically no, unless there is no solid proof of a crime. For years, people have called Trump a felon, from accusations against him with only statements from other people who hate him already, who might be setting him up. With proof, I think felons should not be able to run.
@B77RWW43wks3W
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, it sexual crime, and are not currently under investigation for the same.
@B77MXB83wks3W
Depends on whether the opposing party used the justice system to prevent their opponent from running
@B778FB83wks3W
Depends on the crime, sentencing, if it is current or from years ago, and if/and how it will effect their use of government.
It would have to be looked into. Say for an example they got in trouble when they were 17 because they did something minor but went on to have a successful life, then it would be fine. If it is carried into adulthood. No!
yes as long as citizens are not turned away from jobs that have the same crime. Crimes should no include violent, underage, sexual, or financial offenses.
@B769Y7YRepublican3wks3W
Yes, they should be able to run as long as they didn't serve time and have went through court process.
@9N4PMJK 3wks3W
Yes, as long as their crime was not done in a manner that undermined their office such as corruption
@B75WB7V3wks3W
Depends on the crime, depends on if it’s a politically manufactured crime as we saw in the case of current President Trump. But if the crime is related to any sexual misconduct or any violence, then no
@B75JWVV3wks3W
Yes, anyone that is a U.S. citizen should be able to run for president. It's up to the voters to decide if they should be elected or not.
@B75FG533wks3W
obviously if they've been convicted for murder they shouldn't be trusted (in most cases, recovery can happen but don't trust too readily). but if it's something like a parking ticket or running a red light at some point, it could maybe slide if it's only a one-time offense.
@B74XKR63wks3W
Yes, as long as they have finished their sentence, their crime was not committed while in office, and it not a SERIOUS repeat offense. excluding petty theft, one murder, etc.
@B748NRF3wks3W
Yes, as long as they have not tried to defraud damage or attack the United States or commit treason.
@B73VW4H3wks3W
depends on when the crime was committed, what the crime was, how long they had been doing it for, etc
@B6ZBZJZ4wks4W
Yes, but they need to show that they have learned from their mistake(s) and are prepared to serve with honesty and integrity.
No. After Donald Trump, we should not be allowing criminals to be politicians, especially if the crime was a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime. We should also not allow politicians under investigation for a crime to run.
@B6YR7PV4wks4W
President Trump was convicted of a crime after the statue of limitations had passed, and was wrongfully convicted, I think in general no they should no be allowed to run, but if they have a criminal record they should be able to have a retrial before they run to remove it from their record.
@B6WLWKZ 4wks4W
Yes, as long as it was not a financial, or violent sexual crime, the crime was not committed while in office AND they have finished serving their sentence.
@B6WGYLH4wks4W
yes, if they are reformed and hasn't committed a crime for at least 10 years before running for office
@B6TWRSFRepublican1mo1MO
If they are not found guilty they should be able to run. if they are "convicted" and under trial while the campaign is running then they are convicted they should be disqualified.
@B6SQY481mo1MO
They are allowed to run for office while being convicted, however if they are found guilty they should be stripped of their role if elected
@B6RRSFQ1mo1MO
It really depends. For example, Donald J. Trump, (most beloved president) was "convicted" of 34 "felonies" Most of those were misdemeanors a best, and not a case at worst.
@B6RQ4G71mo1MO
If their trial was rigged, unfair, or they were framed then yes they should be able to run for office.
@B6R38431mo1MO
I think that if it is a non serious crime then it can be looked past like a speeding ticket for example
@B6R33NXRepublican1mo1MO
Yes but only if they have been proven innocent in a court of law and as long as the crime convicted is not a felony, violent, or sexual crime.
@B6Q4V7L1mo1MO
No, but with the exception of Eugene Debs in the 1920 presidential election (when Wilson violated the 1st Admendment)
@B6PR5YR1mo1MO
yes, but the crime must not be a felony, sex crime, violent crime, or financial crime or committed while in office,
@B6P96QC1mo1MO
Yes, But as long as they will not commit that crime again, and If It's not a sexual or a crime of violence.
@B3VGV2T 1mo1MO
In the United States, there is no federal constitutional or statutory prohibition against a person with a criminal conviction, including a felony, from running for or serving in most public offices. The U.S. Constitution sets only three specific qualifications for presidential candidates: being a natural-born citizen, being at least 35 years old, and having resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years. While some states and specific types of public offices may have their own disqualification laws for certain crimes (like bribery or treason), a criminal record alone generally does not prevent som… Read more
@B6NQKWM1mo1MO
Yes, as long as they finished serving their sentence 14 years prior (akin to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 "be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years") and the crime was not committed while in office.
@B6NBM6N2mos2MO
Yes, as long as it wasn’t a felony. If felons can’t vote in most cases, why should they be able to run?
@B6N99CL2mos2MO
Depends on the crime, if it was something small such as like, petty theft then no. However, if it was something worse like murder than they absolutely should not.
@B6LSB6FWomen’s Equality2mos2MO
No, we should allow a criminal to be in office, they could put us in danger or even make bad decisions that could lead to bad things.
@B6LDT362mos2MO
From a neutral stance, I believe that no president is good, even if they are convicted of a crime or not.
@B6L7VYG2mos2MO
Yes, people use lawfare on their opponents all the time. If the public wants someone to be their representative, then it'd be democratic.
@B6L3JHZ2mos2MO
Yes, as long as it happened at least 20 years prior, and was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
