The Republican Party cannot blame the media's positive reaction to Vice President Kamala Harris for the downturn in their fortunes, wrote National Review executive editor Mark Antonio Wright. Rather, their problem begins with the fact that they "picked a bad candidate" to lead the ticket.The Nationa...
He’s not even legally allowed to hold office.
He is able to be elected president again, as (for better or worse) being a convicted felon is not one of the disqualifying criteria for that office.
Several US states invoked the 14th Amendment as grounds to disqualify him, but the Republican-controlled Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that only the US Congress has the authority to make that determination. Which, divided as Congress is right now, could never happen.
It’s an incorrect ruling. States have always been the judges of legal qualification for office.
Congress has it’s own method to disqualify someone: impeachment.
I agree, but unfortunately the Supreme Court’s word is (literally) law. There is no avenue to contest that short of passing another amendment with more teeth than the 14th, or waiting for a less-biased court to re-evaluate the ruling.
He is. You can be a convicted felon and still hold office.
You can’t lead an insurrection after taking an oath of office and still hold office.
Seems there is a gap there
One of those loopholes born of the founding fathers just never expecting us to be that stupid. A constitutional “this is why we have dumb warnings on the box” moment if you will.
No, that was a deliberate choice in order to prevent people in power from being able to silence their political opponents by locking them up on trumped-up charges. (See e.g. Alexei Navalny)
The real reason Trump shouldn’t be eligible to hold office is because of his coup attempt and the Insurrection Clause, not his 34 felony convictions.
Eugene Debs is also a good example from within the US.