I've asked this very pertinent question...

[GiqueCee]

... many times, but have yet to receive a coherent answer: WHY the hell is a convicted felon allowed to run for ANY elective office, let alone the goddam presidency?
That is insanity of astronomical proportions.

[Walleye]

1. Because of the Republican craven coalition

[onecaliberal]

2. There is NO ONE willing to uphold and defend the constitution.

The child rapist is Constitutionally not eligible to run based on the 14th amendment.

[H2O Man]

13. Correct.

Thank you.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

32. Correction: There is no one IN POWER willing to uphold and defend...

Plenty of people out there who would do it, but they’re without power and ENOUGH money.

[Frasier Balzov]

3. Allowed by whom?

If your candidate is popular and enough people support them for office?

[GiqueCee]

36. Allowed BY LAW...

... the 14th Amendment is just vague enough for weaseldicks on the Dark Side of the Aisle to argue that it doesn't specifically mention the President, so nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah. And of course, there's that gaping loophole at the end of Section 3 that you could drive a truck through.

I'm finding it both curious and disturbing that so many respondents appear to argue in defense of this grotesque shortcoming in the rule of law. It should have the finality of a guillotine. If someone is a convicted felon, that person CANNOT run for, or hold, elective or appointed office. PERIOD.

As I mentioned in another reply in this thread, If a teacher has so much as a misdemeanor, that's the end of their career. But an Orange Gargoyle with the moral compass of a rabid hyena is free to wreak havoc and try to destroy the nation from within, just as Putin instructed him to do, and those who should be up in arms, are instead splitting frog hairs over the question of why his second ascension to the highest office on the planet was possible in the first place.

Go figure.

[Blues Heron]

4. Colorado blocked him from the ballot, but the Roberts court put him back on

[Jit423]

11. I wonder if Colorado Governor had ignored the SCOTUS as Trump himself has ignored it and the lower courts,

what would have happened. As an act of defiance, like so many acts of defiance by Gov. Abbot and other GOP, had the Colorado Governor just ordered his name removed from their ballots would there be support for him as there was for Abbott's defiance?

[kelly1mm]

27. He could withhold CO electoral votes in theory (not that it matters as they were not won by President Trump anyway). nt

[Irish_Dem]

5. 69% of the US population either loves a criminal as POTOS or doesn't care.

From University of Florida General Election Turnout data on 11/26
31.26% voted for Harris
32.04% voted for Trump
36.70% didn't vote

[The Wandering Harper]

41. people complain about non-voters

but apparently forget about vote suppression

[Irish_Dem]

42. Yes how many of the non voters were suppressed votes?

[ThreeNoSeep]

6. Really?

Many times? No coherent answer at all, from anybody, or any source whatsoever? Golly.
Maybe you are misspelling the word "Constitution"?

[GiqueCee]

7. Your snide remarks aside...

... how 'bout you cite the Amendment that directly addresses the question.

I know that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that the Gangrenous Orange Boil on the Ass of Humanity shouldn't have been allowed to run, but his defenders, nit-picked the vague wording to death.

For your edification:
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

My question stands.

[ThreeNoSeep]

8. No, you just refuse to accept the answer

Name the court that found he did these things. I'm not saying he didn't do them. He obviously did. But my opinion about what a candidate has done only matters in the voting booth. Keeping someone off a ballot requires a court decision. Name the court that found he did these things.

I'll stand by my snide response. Your question doesn't help.

[GiqueCee]

16. The question...

... has nothing to do with courts. It was a rhetorical inquiry as to why safeguards against such an eventuality were never enacted. What we are facing now is stark proof that it should have been done long ago.

And your belligerence contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

[LudwigPastorius]

33. The safeguard against an insurrectionist running for president is in black and white.

However, it is up to Congress to enforce the 14th amendment.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

A bill was introduced in 2022 to do just that, however the Democrats lost control of the House shortly after, and it died in committee.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9578?s=1&r=12&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22chamberActionDateCode%3A%5C%222022-12-15%7C117%7C1000%5C%22+AND+billIsReserved%3A%5C%22N%5C%22%22%7D

[onenote]

10. The decision reversing Colorado's action disqualifying Trump was unanimous.

I guess that makes Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson "defenders" of Trump and justices who "nit picked" the wording to death.

[GiqueCee]

15. Get your fact straight...

... Congressional sycophants squealed their dismay at the prospect of using the14th long before Colorado acted, or the Supreme super majority said a word. The nitpicking was over whether or not a conviction was necessary to invoke the 14th.

[onenote]

18. My facts are completely straight.

The decision was unanimous. As Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson wrote, all nine members of the Court agreed that the case required the Court to decide "whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment....Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles."

You quoted the Constitutional language. I get you don't like how the court interpreted that language and you don't like that the Court's decision answers the question you posed in your OP.

[GiqueCee]

20. Wow...

... just, wow. My OP had NOTHING to do with the Supremes, for God's sake! The question was, HOW is it possible, HOW did we ever let this come to be, that a fucking FELON can become the leader of the free world? It should NEVER have happened, and the fact that there are loopholes to allow it is a sad commentary on the values to which we purport to aspire.

I am done with you.

[sarisataka]

9. There is no law preventing a convicted felon from running for office

That's about as coherent as I can make it.

[Iggo]

12. THIS. (See above)

[GiqueCee]

19. That fact is what prompted the question in the first place!

A school teacher can lose his or her job over a misdemeanor, but the swine that infest the Dark Side of the Aisle can commit all manner of felonious offenses – gettin' jiggy with minors, for Christ's sake! – with no consequences at all.

There is a disturbing number of respondents taking mortal offense at the question, and seemingly siding with felons. WTF? Let me make my question a statement: NO one convicted of a felony should be able to run for elective office!

PERIOD!

[TheKentuckian]

21. Okay, fire up the Delorean and get that into the Constitution

Not that it in any way applies here but I also believe that once a person fulfills their sentence then they should no longer be a felon and should be returned to the status of citizen so they can properly integrate into society.

In this case though he should have been convicted for inciting and fomenting an insurrection and barred that way since the Republicans refused to bar via impeachment.

[GiqueCee]

37. The very term, "Amendment"...

... suggests that there is an avenue by which we can correct an erroneous assumption on the part of our predecessors. Ending slavery and allowing women to vote come to mind. Though that last one is in jeopardy with the weasels that have taken over Toad Hall. Those fuckers want to burn it ALL to the ground so they can rule over the ashes. (paraphrasing one of my favorite lines from "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu)

[kelly1mm]

31. There is a process to amend the Constitution. If you feel this needs to be added get on that. If not, don't

rail at the many people here who are giving you the actual answer that you just don't want to accept.

[El-Capitan]

14. Perhaps ask Merrick Garland.

I get a little tingle whenever Garland goes in front of the public and says, "No one is above the law."



I bought into that fantasy. No more.

[Dem4life1234]

17. The founders

The founders of this country couldn't fucking conceive of voters being dumb and immoral enough to vote for such a character. So they didn't even think about putting it in the Constitution.

[Meowmee]

22. Join the club

I have posted that very same thing numerous times here but as a critique, not a question. There are almost no requirements / standards here for who can run for office for the most part. You can thank the people that wrote the constitution or whatever law governs this, I can’t remember where those requirements are written exactly.

I presume some would say that it would be an “impingement of your rights” if there were more standards to run for president, other than that you have to be born in this country and a certain age.

[Maeve]

23. Innocent until PROVEN guilty

He hasn't been convicted, so....
Also, American law is a rental ass; available to whoever can pay for it.
Does that answer you?

[Skittles]

25. no WAY could he pass even the most basic background check

no fucking way

[Maeve]

34. Agreed! But until that gets into the constitution....and accepted by SCOTUS....we're stuck

[GiqueCee]

38. The 14th Amendment...

... says nothing about conviction, only "Having engaged in..." which Trumpleforeskin most certainly did. THAT fact is beyond debate.

[Maeve]

40. Devil's in the details. And lawyers are devils with details

The current interpretation insists on conviction, so ....

[Skittles]

24. A GUY WHO COULD NOT PASS EVEN THE MOST BASIC BACKGROUND CHECK

I DON'T GET IT EITHER

[kelly1mm]

26. Simple answer. The US Constitution sets forth the requirements to be President. 1) natural born citizen. 2) 35 years

old. 3) been a US resident for the past 14 years and 4) not an insurrectionist

See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: and 14th Amendment, Clause 3.

Thats it. Nothing about felons not being able to run/serve.

[GiqueCee]

39. Precisely my point...

... it is NOT clearly elucidated, which it should have been. That oversight is why there ARE amendments. 27 of 'em so far, if I'm not mistaken. The 19th is getting a lot of attention since the Orange skid mark ascended the throne again. The treacherous fucks in the Heritage Foundation want to rescind that one. Those of the feminine persuasion should take note.
That evil little shit, Nick Fuentes, isn't the only one who believes, "Your body, MY choice. Forever". The lower life forms in the Heritage Foundation, and other Right-wing terrorist organizations warn their sympathizers, "Y'all bettah keep yore kitchen bitch barefoot and pregnant, 'fore she hands you yore plums in a pouch."
Weak men cannot abide strong women. And weak men infest the Republican Party.

[claudette]

28. Because money rules

in America

[J_William_Ryan]

29. "WHY the hell is a convicted felon allowed to run for ANY elective office..."

Because there’s no legal, constitutional mechanism that exists to prevent such a thing from happening.

The means to prevent a convicted felon from running for or hold public office is the sole purview of the political process – the sole purview of the people who vote, where the people would in good faith and good conscience vote against a convicted felon holding public office.

Clearly that process has failed; clearly the people have failed in that responsibility, consistent with an America hobbled by the malignancy of fear, ignorance, and stupidity.

The people are solely responsible for the bad government they get; the people deserve the bad government they seek.

[elleng]

30. Founders imposed no restrictions on serving as President other than age and citizenship. THAT is why.

sorry if not satisfying. Amending Constitution's not easy.

[republianmushroom]

35. Possible answer to question, Because it is not written in the Constitution of the United States

of America as Amendment number 1 or 2. (50% of voters cannot read more that that number) Nor, was it chiseled on those stone tablet that Moses carted around for several years. And even if it was, you would need a DOJ and and a Supreme Court that would uphold that law. Which we don't seem to have now. Total ass but maybe total truth