Counter offer: Pass a law barring people facing felony charges from running for President.
If it would keep you from owning a gun:
ATF form 4473, line 21c and d:
"c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?
d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"
Why should you be allowed the button? 🤔
Super easy for those in power to keep their rivals from being able to run for office. Currently the president and afraid you’ll be unseated by the opposing party’s candidate? Just start an investigation on them! Boom, no more rivals.
I upvoted both of you. This requires deeper debate.
Totally agree. These systems are critically important for our society. They need to be considered with care, and we need to be mindful of the complexities that come with any changes to them.
The real solution is you need a populace that is civically engaged and capable of enough critical thought to not fall for the right-wing fearmongering propaganda Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Murdoch, et al. spew out.
Bingo. A properly funded and functional public education system, that teaches real critical thinking and let’s include media literacy while we’re at it.
Not saying that they were right, because they were wrong, but this was actually a presented logical reason why voting was restricted to male landowners at one point. They were the only part of the population that received a formal education. Regardless of motivation this became a method of oppression.
To be clear, I agree that public education is a key to a strong democracy, as is removing restrictions on voting.
Pros:
- Maintaining public trust and promoting integrity
- Barring those under felony indictment from running for office could help maintain public confidence in the integrity of elected officials and the political process.
- It sets a higher standard for candidates, emphasizing that those seeking public office should not be facing serious criminal charges.
- It underscores the expectation that public officials should be free from wrongdoing and suspicion of significant criminal activity, cultivating a political environment where ethical behavior is prioritized.
- Reducing corruption and preventing distractions
- Individuals under felony indictment may be more susceptible to engaging in corrupt activities. Preventing them from running for office reduces the likelihood of corrupt practices infiltrating government.
- Legal battles can be time-consuming and distracting, detracting from a candidate’s ability to focus on campaigning and, if elected, governing effectively.
- If an elected official is convicted of a felony while in office, it could lead to their removal, necessitating a special election and causing disruption and additional costs.
- If an elected official is convicted of a felony while in office, that individual may use the office itself to avoid sentencing outcomes.
- Maintaining national security
- [While I am less than thrilled to include this one, ] Allowing individuals under felony indictment to run for office could pose national security risks, especially if their past actions have compromised national security.
- Individuals under the influence of external and independent nations may have resources beyond the intended scope of our elections process, giving them an artificial boost towards victory. This is akin to a complete capture of our Government in the case of the Office of the Presidency. Or near enough.
Cons:
- Presumption of innocence and potential for political manipulation
- In the U.S. legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Preventing those under indictment from running could be seen as undermining this principle by imposing a penalty based on an unproven allegation.
- There is a risk that felony charges could be brought against candidates for political reasons to prevent them from running, exploiting the indictment process to eliminate competition and undermine the fairness of elections.
- Limiting voters’ choices and potential for disenfranchisement
- Such a restriction would limit the pool of candidates available to voters, potentially preventing them from choosing their preferred representative.
- Voters may wish to support a candidate who, despite being under indictment, they believe is the best choice. Restricting candidates based on indictments can be seen as undemocratic and paternalistic.
- Variable legal standards and unequal treatment
- Different jurisdictions may have varying standards and processes for indictments, leading to potential inconsistencies in the application of this restriction.
- This variability can result in unequal treatment of candidates based on where they are running for office, creating a patchwork of standards that complicates the electoral process.
- Depending on how such a rule is applied, it could disproportionately affect certain communities that face higher rates of criminal legal system involvement.
My conclusion. This was stated elsewhere in the comments and is also my number one priority (aside from an alternative voting pipe dream):
-Education.
With an educated, well-reasoning and engaged populace, we don’t need the Government to coddle its voters. It’s a wonder Republicans are so against education and critical thinking skills.
One additional note that doesn’t really fit in the pros/cons list itself: This change would probably require a constitutional amendment, not just a standard law.
Edit- sources for further reading
https://www.voanews.com/a/can-felons-serve-in-us-elected-federal-offices-/6703196.html
Assuming a corrupt system, yes. But in our current system? Not so much. Trump deserves each of his felony indictments and if it would keep him from buying a gun, which it does, it should block him from being Commander in Chief.
I don’t think our current system is nearly as robust as you think. Trump’s first term laid that bare.
So many laws dictating what the president can and can’t do don’t have any actual repercussions for breaking them written in them because it was assumed impeachment would be sufficient. Trump showed that with our current system that means if you can’t guarantee you’ll have 67 votes in the Senate, then those laws may as well not exist. And every week the Supreme Court shows how much “settled case law” isn’t anymore, so with a corrupt high court in his league, even the laws that do have teeth may be subverted.
We absolutely need to make changes to shore up the system and plug the gaps, but we have to do so with care that we don’t end up handing new, more powerful weapons to the very bad actors we’re trying to protect against.
The problem is not that Trump is under felony indictment. It’s not that he’s a liar, a cheater, a misogynist, narcissist, and elitist. It’s that, knowing this, a lot of people STILL support him for our nation’s top office. That’s how screwed up our populace has become. That’s the problem.
I think it’s important to consider just how… ickily inviolable most (if not all) of the right wing feels about the second amendment. I don’t think this line of logic would carry much weight with that crowd.
But I agree with what you’re saying. We need much more stringent controls on who is eligible for office.
Wouldn’t it take more than an investigation? A grand jury would need to sign off on the indictments.
But how is it fair for so many of his trials and investigations to drag on for 4 years, especially when the accusations are this serious?
Narrator: it isn’t.
I think we just need something like “can you legally buy a gun? Then you can run for president”
Among the bill’s cosponsors is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who recently told Politico, “I think it’s common sense that you can’t have the president sitting in the Oval Office worried about whether some lawyer or some local DA somewhere is going to go after him.”
How is this common sense? Politicians are in urgent need of more fear of the law and voters.
Can you imagine if this was normalized for the president, and then over time became acceptable for other people?
“You can’t have congress people worried about whether some lawyer will go after them.”
“You can’t have CEO’s worried about whether the DA will go after them.”
“You can’t expect your boss to worry about whether you will go after them.”
“You can’t expect your pastor to worry about whether the faithless will go after them.”
They’re so out of touch with the rest of the world, they think they should be immune from prosecution.
And yet they don’t seem to realize that most people think prison is the best place for all of them. Nobody gives a fuck about their well-being or their “worries.”
In other words, “Let’s strip out one of the checks and balances built in to the country in order to ensure we get the very dictator king the founders sought to prevent.”
The President is worried about the world getting nuked, spies, destabilization, economy, and more. A lawyer is the LEAST of their worries and, honestly, shouldn’t be worried unless they breach the duties of their position.
In the end, they are a representative of US. They are still a person, albeit with a ton of power, but a person who represents a country. They are human and should be subject to all of the same laws. So should all forms of government (Legislative and Judicial). Just because we provide you with our voice doesn’t mean you get to not be held accountable when you misrepresent or flat out do illegal shit.
I guarantee you Trump never worried about any of those things.
It’s just common sense that there are two classes of people in the world. Those the law protects but does not bind, and those the law binds but does not protect.
“I’d like to be able to commit unlimited acts that violate state laws, please.”
What the literal fuck.
Republicans: “We see no problems with this whatsoever.”
Remember: they aren’t arguing Trump didn’t break the law, they’re arguing that the Democrats are wrong to prosecute him for it.
they’re arguing that the Democrats are wrong to prosecute him for it.
Also worth saying that Democrats aren’t prosecuting him. This has been a recurring piece of disinformation spread by Republicans since the first official charge against Trump.
He broke the law. The justice system is prosecuting him. Not Biden, not Democrats, but the judicial branch of the government.
Removed by mod
can you not use ableist slurs so casual?
Clearly you’ve never heard of Warren g Harding
REGULATORS!!! Mount up! It was a clear black night…
Crippling personality disorders
I think the over-bluted ego crushed any personality to death decades ago.
It could be dementia. He is getting on in age.
Yeah. Best they can do is… a few bullshit gestures that will go no where.
unless they win.
Candyass pussy should be stripped of everything and exiled to putinland to shut him up
Maybe if Trump loses he’ll move to Russia and fuck things up over there instead
That would sure lighten the country’s mood
Or fall out a window.
This is proof that for the ruling class life really is just a game… of Monopoly ™️ .
Nah, monopoly was way more fair. This is like monopoly with house rules. You all know what I am talking about. You give shady loans to your sister, just to keep the game going. After you own everything you give big payouts to players to make real time rule changes. No? OK, maybe I am the only psycho that played late stage monopoly.
Sounds like someone’s broadcasting his confidence in the NY criminal trial defense.
He wants a “too big to fail” law for politicians. Its so stupid and short sighted, but its an obvious result of a narcissist under pressure.
He’s scared lol.
huh so he’s THAT desperate?
he is afraid
Removed by mod
I mean, this was hardly “advocating assassination.” I never once suggested death was the solution. But whatever.
I mean they also think wishing for meteors are calls for violence so who knows
An extinction level nonviolent meteor sounds like a fine option.
I wonder if there was an internet in 1942, if “advocating assassination” of Hitler would be censored?
Depends on whichever instance it would have been?
The solution?… no
But it certainly is one
Careful, someone offended might report you and the mods might remove your comment. 🙄
That’s what being on .world gets you. That instance is all about free speech and open federation, except for when a mod or admin gets upset and censors the most milquetoast political statements.
That’s all instances. Mods are all open when it’s what they want. Lemm.ee is just as bad. Try speaking a lefty mind in the conservative community lol.
So it sounds like they’re wording this that it would cover ‘former presidents’ so in theory Biden would also be protected. The GOP wouldn’t be able to go after him for their made up charges. Are they willing to protect Trump and not go after Biden? Probably, if it ensures Trump will be president again.
They would have an exception carved out, don’t you worry.
GOP legislators better do what Trump wants if they know what’s good for them.
Come on, neo-cons, kneel down and kiss his ring.
Daddy Donald gonna give their rumps a spanking!
not if he’s taking a nap.
He’ll be dead after a second term lol. It’s a (evil) miracle he’s made it this far on a cocaine and fast food diet.
Everything I’ve heard about Trump is that he’s straight edged. No drugs or alcohol.
I’ve heard the same, I also know he’s a liar and drugs were known to be all over the White House when he was president. I can believe he doesn’t drink, but his personality and behavior (e.g. working/tweeting hours) say cocaine to me.
I feel like if he were a user, he’d have been caught by now, and losing a brother (iirc) to addiction is a solid enough reason to expect sobriety of him.
