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.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No
@9FMNPCK7mos7MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes
@97KFKCF1yr1Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
@9FNCP6ZIndependent7mos7MO
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
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
@9GN5KWP6mos6MO
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.
Yes, as long as the crime was not a violent or sexual felony
@8HJZ39Z4yrs4Y
Minor crimes such as underage drinking and stupid things like that should be allowed but nothing major (rape, pedophilia, etc)
@8LBSJPF3yrs3Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
@8YZRCZK2yrs2Y
I believe it depends on the crime
@8VRPWVL3yrs3Y
That depends on the crime
@93W2JTW2yrs2Y
It all depends on what the crime is
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.
@9J5D9FW3mos3MO
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
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?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
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...?
@9CJ6CB63mos3MO
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.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution3mos3MO
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
@9CFJ5BV10mos10MO
Yes, because some crimes are minor, some would be excused by jury nullification if the jury knew that existed, and some are made up by currupt officials. Let the people decide. I think the Constitution avoided saying just any crime could disqualify them, for a reason.
Deleted2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office, they have finished serving their sentence, and it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@8Z3BWCQ2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, the crime was not committed while in office, and they have finished serving their sentence
@8M77NCL3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as they have been rehabilitated.
@98VZGKQ1yr1Y
Yes, but they must have finished their sentence, and cannot have committed the crime while in office.
@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
@8K94YGT3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and all details related to the crime(s) are released to the public
@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, but all convictions and sentences must be made public knowledge
@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.
@8K4PWDS3yrs3Y
@9LKM68NRepublican3 days3D
Yes, as long as their convicted crime is discussed and there has been change from that person after finishing their sentence.
@9LK6YS94 days4D
Yes, as long as their crime didn't evolve anything related to their position or work and it wasn't committed while working in office.
@9LJWRXX 5 days5D
Yes, unless the crime is politically related, or happened in office, or is violent. Prefer if they finish serving their sentence first too.
@9LJCG7GRepublican6 days6D
If a person has been convicted then the guilt is declared. Unfortunately the justice system has been weaponized. Being tied up in court is not the same as being guilty. Due process not the other way around
@9LG27SS1wk1W
They have the right to run for office, but the voters may hurt their chance for running for office and they'd face criticism.
@9LD6B9Z2wks2W
Yes, as long as it was non-violent and did not violate the Constitution or the oath of office previously held, and not a felony for which a sentence has not been completed, and/or the politician has not been pardoned.
@9LCZFTB2wks2W
Yes, depending on the severity of the crime, and if the crime was committed while in office, always.
@9LBBP2J 2wks2W
yes once they have finished serving their sentence. and as long as that offence was not committed while in office. and as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime.
@9LB9WMX2wks2W
Yes, but I feel like the factors of the degree of the crime along with the time it was convicted should be observed.
@9L9WJF62wks2W
I personally think it depends on the crime they committed but if they were charged for a crime but found not guilty its okay.
@9L94M2K2wks2W
Yes, Because of the charges that have had spurulous misdeamors converted to felony violations against Trump (like in 3rd world countries) - I have changed my mind.
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...
