Former President Trump was found guilty on all counts in his historic and unprecedented criminal trial, making him the first former president of the United States to be convicted of a crime.
This is a great day for Conservatism, the rule of law is upheld.
Not really? Think about how dangerous it would be if all you had to do to disqualify your political opponents was parade them through a kangaroo court and send them to jail? That’s basically what Russia is.
At the end of the day, the American people should have final say in choosing their leader. Of course, this comes with the caveat that an electorate has to be willing to participate, and be able to tell when someone isn’t fit for presidency. It also comes with the asterisk that you can’t run for president after committing treason, or like an act of terrorism, but I think everyone is kinda in agreement on that.
A minor crime doesn’t preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
Imo, what should be done is no crime can disqualify you from office. That would prevent any corrupt judge from convicting candidates for political reasons.
If anyone was wondering, a convict can run for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Wild that the constitution disqualifies people with “high crimes or misdemeanors” but not felonies.
Not really? Think about how dangerous it would be if all you had to do to disqualify your political opponents was parade them through a kangaroo court and send them to jail? That’s basically what Russia is.
At the end of the day, the American people should have final say in choosing their leader. Of course, this comes with the caveat that an electorate has to be willing to participate, and be able to tell when someone isn’t fit for presidency. It also comes with the asterisk that you can’t run for president after committing treason, or like an act of terrorism, but I think everyone is kinda in agreement on that.
Complete immunity is how you get a king, not a President.
The risk of a kangaroo court is why the system consists of a trial by jury of one’s peers, along with an appeals process.
The risk of an actual kangaroo court sending an innocent political rival to prison is therefore, a non-issue.
When this topic arose, I thought a felony would preclude you from office. I was a bit surprised it does not.
I agree with your assessment as to why it shouldn’t, but I still found it a tad surprising.
It’s because it should, ethically.
It makes no sense that you could be restricted from holding office because of one minor crime but not from a worse one.
A minor crime doesn’t preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
Nope, not impeachment. Misdemeanor, which is lesser than a felony.
I have no clue what you are referencing since that isn’t a requirement to be elected for president. High crimes and misdemeanors is about impeachment.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
Imo, what should be done is no crime can disqualify you from office. That would prevent any corrupt judge from convicting candidates for political reasons.
That’s not a President. That’s a king.
What would you rather have, King George or Putin? Two awful sides of the same coin imo.
Neither, but thanks to trial by jury of our peers and the ability to appeal we don’t have to settle for one or the other.
Elected representatives should have to answer to the same laws and face the same consequences they impose upon us.
deleted by creator