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
@9FMNPCK8mos8MO
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
@97KFKCF2yrs2Y
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
@9FNCP6ZIndependent8mos8MO
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)
@8LBSJPF4yrs4Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
@986M9CR1yr1Y
Yes, as long as it is publicly disclosed
@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.
@9J5D9FW4mos4MO
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
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-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
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...?
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
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-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
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
@9CFJ5BV11mos11MO
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
@8M77NCL4yrs4Y
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
@8K94YGT4yrs4Y
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.
@8K4PWDS4yrs4Y
@9MFX8R736mins36m
Ban politicians. Punish criminals through restitution, flogging, or the death penalty depending on their crime.
@9MFG8CD10hrs10H
Depends on crime! Trump should be allowed if convicted since it is unjust and bias charges to begin with
@9MFCQLRIndependence11hrs11H
Depends, if its a bad crime, like pedophilia, or people who touch children then a strict no, but if they killed someone in self defense, strictly self defense, then yes, it shows that they are willing to protect the country
@9MFBRSL11hrs11H
Yes, but only if they’ve finished serving their sentence, the crime wasn’t committed in office, and the crime wasn’t a felony or violent, sexual, or financial in nature. Also disallow politicians under investigation for a crime unless they’re cleared
@9MDDR8N2 days2D
As long as they hold beliefs that are in line to the ones that I think are acceptable, they can run in office again
@9M9NLZ75 days5D
Yes, as long as the crime was done at least 10 years ago and the President has shown sincere regret for said crime.
@9M8SKW46 days6D
I feel as though this depends on the crime, when it was committed, and other factors. I think they shouldn't run for office but I don' t think banning them from running is fair or constitutional.
@9M8LV5M 6 days6D
Yes, as long as they have served their sentence and have had a check on them to make sure they are not still doing the thing they were convicted of
@9M7ZCFF7 days7D
Yes, as long as the crime is unrelated to their political career, or sexual offence and/or abuse, domestic or otherwise , for example a political who was formerly imprisoned for murder should be able to run, while one convicted of rape or embezzlement should be barred.
@9M6LSTL1wk1W
If the politician found guilty was a victim of election interference and political persecution then yes.
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...
