Incarcerated people can run for President

[Polishprince]

Eugene V. Debs was locked up by liberal icon Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and still conducted his campaign from the yard at the Atlanta Pen.

In fact, Debs scored his all time record of votes received, even running against the tremendous Warren G. Harding.

The entire thought that Garland and Biden might have, that they will be able to neutralize the opposition by imprisoning them, is a load of shit. Hanging out on the yard doesn't negate someone's ability to run for office and doesn't discourage people from voting for them.

Eugene V. Debs Campaign Button, 1920 - The Henry Ford

Eugene V. Debs was a five-time Socialist Party candidate for president in the early 1900s. During the First World War, Debs publicly railed against the war and the military draft. He was jailed in 1918 for his continued agitation against the government. Two years later, Debs made his fifth...

www.thehenryford.org

 

[miketx]

I been around a lot of incarcerated people and most of them don't have the sense to pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

 

[rightwinger]

All you have to do is move the White House to the Big House

 

[Mushroom]

Eugene V. Debs was locked up by liberal icon Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and still conducted his campaign from the yard at the Atlanta Pen.

In fact, Debs scored his all time record of votes received, even running against the tremendous Warren G. Harding.

The entire thought that Garland and Biden might have, that they will be able to neutralize the opposition by imprisoning them, is a load of shit. Hanging out on the yard doesn't negate someone's ability to run for office and doesn't discourage people from voting for them.

Here is the interesting thing about the Constitution. While as a convicted felon he was ineligible to become President, technically there was nothing against him running for the office. And being a Marxist Socialist, he got about 3% of the vote and was not even close to winning the office. Of course, he did try appealing his conviction, even the Supreme Court threw it out. And protests held to support him often turned into riots, which did not help in the area of public opinion considering he was convicted of sedition.

By and large, deadly riots to support somebody convicted of sedition do not help much in proving they were innocent.

So let me get this right. You are somehow claiming that a Marxist running in jail after a felony conviction means... what exactly?

Oh, that was not the first time somebody who could not hold office ran for it. Victoria Woodhull tried it in 1872, with Fredrick Douglas as her running mate.

 

[whitehall]

A socialist 3rd party is legal but it usually siphons votes from democrats. Today the democrat party and the socialist party are the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Here is the interesting thing about the Constitution. While as a convicted felon he was ineligible to become President, technically there was nothing against him running for the office. And being a Marxist Socialist, he got about 3% of the vote and was not even close to winning the office. Of course, he did try appealing his conviction, even the Supreme Court threw it out. And protests held to support him often turned into riots, which did not help in the area of public opinion considering he was convicted of sedition.

By and large, deadly riots to support somebody convicted of sedition do not help much in proving they were innocent.

So let me get this right. You are somehow claiming that a Marxist running in jail after a felony conviction means... what exactly?

Oh, that was not the first time somebody who could not hold office ran for it. Victoria Woodhull tried it in 1872, with Fredrick Douglas as her running mate.

There is no disqualifier in the Constitution regarding felony convictions and being President. Hell, a President can be Impeached, removed from office, and then take office again if re-elected according to the Constitution.

 

[Mushroom]

A socialist 3rd party is legal but it usually siphons votes from democrats. Today the democrat party and the socialist party are the same thing.

It does today.

In that era, it siphoned off votes from the Republicans.

 

[Mushroom]

There is no disqualifier in the Constitution regarding felony convictions and being President. Hell, a President can be Impeached, removed from office, and then take office again if re-elected according to the Constitution.

Here is the irony. Impeachment itself does not disqualify somebody. It is a process to remove them from office, not an actual legal trial.

Say if a politician embezzled funds and took bribes. Impeachment is done to remove them from office, but they still need a court trial to convict them of those offenses and to get a felony and be put in jail. An impeachment can do none of those. And that is not just for President, that holds true for any elected office, state or federal.

In fact, an Impeachment is not a hell of a lot different than a "Vote of No Confidence" in many countries. In England, Prime Minister William Gladstone was not ejected once, but three times by Parliament.

As far as being elected, that then gets tricky because of state laws. For example, in Florida a felon can not be elected to any office. That means that a convicted felon could not be on the ballot in Florida. And the same is true in Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and over a dozen other states. Federally, there is no prohibition. But realistically, it would be a mess for either of the major parties because they would either not even be on the ballot in many states at best, or a split ticket at worst.

And good luck ever getting elected with your name not being on the ballot in around 1/4 of the states in the country.

 

[martybegan]

Here is the irony. Impeachment itself does not disqualify somebody. It is a process to remove them from office, not an actual legal trial.

Say if a politician embezzled funds and took bribes. Impeachment is done to remove them from office, but they still need a court trial to convict them of those offenses and to get a felony and be put in jail. An impeachment can do none of those. And that is not just for President, that holds true for any elected office, state or federal.

In fact, an Impeachment is not a hell of a lot different than a "Vote of No Confidence" in many countries. In England, Prime Minister William Gladstone was not ejected once, but three times by Parliament.

As far as being elected, that then gets tricky because of state laws. For example, in Florida a felon can not be elected to any office. That means that a convicted felon could not be on the ballot in Florida. And the same is true in Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and over a dozen other states. Federally, there is no prohibition. But realistically, it would be a mess for either of the major parties because they would either not even be on the ballot in many states at best, or a split ticket at worst.

And good luck ever getting elected with your name not being on the ballot in around 1/4 of the states in the country.

Can States impose restrictions on federal offices, or just State offices?

 

[Mushroom]

Can States impose restrictions on federal offices, or just State offices?

Each state is responsible for their own elections. Each one largely determines the qualifications for those that are elected from their own state.

Remember, we are a Republic, and each state is sovereign within its own borders. And as having the ultimate authority for who is on the ballot in their own state, yes they can determine if somebody running for President can or can not be on it.

Case in point, each candidate (or party) in each state must qualify to be on that ballot. For the major parties that is pretty much automatic, but for the independents they generally have to go through a petition process in order to be placed on the ballot. And one of the unusual things in 1992 with Ross Perot is that he was placed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the drive of his supporters in each state to get him on the ballot. It is not unusual for minor party or independent candidates to only be on the ballot in a few states.

But the President is the only office that is elected nationally this way. In the others, it is a vote inside the state itself, and as those elected are representing the state they have their own qualifications for the election process. And once again, this can be seen in how states fill empty Senate seats. In most states, the Governor of the state can appoint anybody they want. In 11 states, the Governor must select an individual from the party of the Senator they are replacing (therefore a Democrat or Republican Governor of one party can not replace a deceased senator of the other with someone from their own party). And in 4 states, a special election is held to replace them.

But yes, as a representative of a state, the state does indeed have the right to put qualifications on candidates. Just as in the President, there is no disqualifier in the Constitution for felony convictions of Congressmen. However, some states have specific disqualifiers for them, in addition to the states that forbid Felons from being on a ballot.

 

[DGS49]

In the most recent election, we in Pennsylvania elected a dead guy and a retard. We'd be happy to vote for a jailbird.

 

[Coyote]

There is no disqualifier in the Constitution regarding felony convictions and being President. Hell, a President can be Impeached, removed from office, and then take office again if re-elected according to the Constitution.

It’s ironic that a felon can’t vote but he can be elected to the presidency.

 

[Mushroom]

It’s ironic that a felon can’t vote but he can be elected to the presidency.

That all depends on the state.

 

[martybegan]

Each state is responsible for their own elections. Each one largely determines the qualifications for those that are elected from their own state.

Remember, we are a Republic, and each state is sovereign within its own borders. And as having the ultimate authority for who is on the ballot in their own state, yes they can determine if somebody running for President can or can not be on it.

Case in point, each candidate (or party) in each state must qualify to be on that ballot. For the major parties that is pretty much automatic, but for the independents they generally have to go through a petition process in order to be placed on the ballot. And one of the unusual things in 1992 with Ross Perot is that he was placed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the drive of his supporters in each state to get him on the ballot. It is not unusual for minor party or independent candidates to only be on the ballot in a few states.

But the President is the only office that is elected nationally this way. In the others, it is a vote inside the state itself, and as those elected are representing the state they have their own qualifications for the election process. And once again, this can be seen in how states fill empty Senate seats. In most states, the Governor of the state can appoint anybody they want. In 11 states, the Governor must select an individual from the party of the Senator they are replacing (therefore a Democrat or Republican Governor of one party can not replace a deceased senator of the other with someone from their own party). And in 4 states, a special election is held to replace them.

But yes, as a representative of a state, the state does indeed have the right to put qualifications on candidates. Just as in the President, there is no disqualifier in the Constitution for felony convictions of Congressmen. However, some states have specific disqualifiers for them, in addition to the states that forbid Felons from being on a ballot.

How can the State add more requirements for President when the Federal Constitution is supreme and gives specific requirements for President?

 

[martybegan]

It’s ironic that a felon can’t vote but he can be elected to the presidency.

States can set qualifications for voters, as given in the Constitution, but can't override the Constitution's requirements for being President.

If any laws are on State books making additional requirements, they are only still there because no one has had standing to litigate against them yet.

 

[Care4all]

There is no disqualifier in the Constitution regarding felony convictions and being President. Hell, a President can be Impeached, removed from office, and then take office again if re-elected according to the Constitution.

A president can NOT hold office again, if impeached and removed.






Although that clause in Article II—which addresses the presidential executive branch—is silent on the question of whether an impeached and convicted president may become president again, Article I, Section 3 answers the question squarely:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

 

[Pellinore]

A president can NOT hold office again, if impeached and removed.






Although that clause in Article II—which addresses the presidential executive branch—is silent on the question of whether an impeached and convicted president may become president again, Article I, Section 3 answers the question squarely:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

When the Senate votes to remove, they also vote to disqualify from holding future office. They could hold the votes separately, but as a matter of Senate procedures, they vote for both issues at once.

There was actually some talk at Trump's second impeachment about whether McConnell would split the votes. This would have allowed some Republicans, Never-Trumpers for example, to vote against removal, when he was out anyway, but for disqualification, to have an actual long-lasting effect. In the end, he obviously didn't do it, but he could have.

 

[Polishprince]

When the Senate votes to remove, they also vote to disqualify from holding future office. They could hold the votes separately, but as a matter of Senate procedures, they vote for both issues at once.

There was actually some talk at Trump's second impeachment about whether McConnell would split the votes. This would have allowed some Republicans, Never-Trumpers for example, to vote against removal, when he was out anyway, but for disqualification, to have an actual long-lasting effect. In the end, he obviously didn't do it, but he could have.

Why would any Republican want to disqualify the GOP's standard bearer in the 2024 election and basically surrender to Sleepy Joe?

 

[Mushroom]

How can the State add more requirements for President when the Federal Constitution is supreme and gives specific requirements for President?

They can not, and do not.

But once again, each state is responsible for the elections inside their own state.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

That is right there in the Constitution. And has not a thing to do with the "requirements for President". It is their ballot, they have a right as a sovereign State to set requirements on who appears on the ballot inside their state. Just as they are free to decide how they hold primaries.

 

[Mushroom]

When the Senate votes to remove, they also vote to disqualify from holding future office. They could hold the votes separately, but as a matter of Senate procedures, they vote for both issues at once.

There was actually some talk at Trump's second impeachment about whether McConnell would split the votes. This would have allowed some Republicans, Never-Trumpers for example, to vote against removal, when he was out anyway, but for disqualification, to have an actual long-lasting effect. In the end, he obviously didn't do it, but he could have.

And even that is tricky, because it has never been challenged.

Article II Section 4 does indeed lay out ow to impeach somebody. However, it has to be noted that Congress is not in itself a legal body. It has no power to try or convict a person in the legal sense, only in if they can hold office. And the Constitution does not say that a person impeached can not run again.

So short of a following legal trial with a judge and jury with following felony conviction is somebody truly ineligible to run again.

The claim that the Senate can vote to permanently exclude somebody has long been questioned, and likely would be tossed out if ever challenged. Because they are not a judicial body, and any such declarations would be seen as extrajudicial and without Constitutional standing. That has only been used a handful of times, and in each case against a disgraced judge. And as those are appointed and not elected positions, there was nothing to really challenge as nobody was ever going to appoint them again so it was largely a meaningless thing in the first place.