Is Trump legally qualified to be a presidential candidate?

[Josh]

Do you really think that removing a mattress tag and trying to stay in power (by violent and other illegal methods) after losing an election are the same thing?

Yet that's not what he's being charged with. He's being charged with "falsifying business records" under an arcane statute.

[Ken]

Yet that's not what he's being charged with. He's being charged with "falsifying business records" under an arcane statute.

It's not an arcane statute. It is one of the most commonly charged white collar felonies in NY. Trump is, in fact, a very ordinary criminal: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... ince-2015/

[Bootstrap]

Most of the past two pages have nothing to do with the topic. Good discussion, but please find the right place to have it.

FWIW, the current trials in New York also have nothing to do with this topic. Falsifying business records, even to influence an election, would not disqualify a presidential candidate. Neither would a felony conviction.

Only the January 6th trials are really relevant, I think. And they are likely to become moot - by the time the Supreme Court rules on Absolute Immunity, there is little time until the election. If Trump is elected, he will probably pardon himself and everyone involved. Of course, if he is not elected, the trials could continue.

[Josh]

The proper pathway is impeachment and conviction. Trump was impeached but not convicted. The end.

It will probably take the Supreme Court to rebuke lower level courts, judges, and prosecutors attempting to manipulate the 2024 election.

[JimFoxvog]

The proper pathway is impeachment and conviction. Trump was impeached but not convicted. The end.

Impeachment is for removal from office. This theory would allow any crime at the end of a president's term. Of course, in today's climate, impeachments will never lead to conviction because there are enough Senators of the president's party to block it. As I recall, some of the Republican Senators didn't vote for conviction even though they knew Trump did what he was accused of because they said at the end of the term impeachment was irrelevant--it should be up to the courts.

[Josh]

The proper pathway is impeachment and conviction. Trump was impeached but not convicted. The end.

Impeachment is for removal from office. This theory would allow any crime at the end of a president's term. Of course, in today's climate, impeachments will never lead to conviction because there are enough Senators of the president's party to block it. As I recall, some of the Republican Senators didn't vote for conviction even though they knew Trump did what he was accused of because they said at the end of the term impeachment was irrelevant--it should be up to the courts.

The proper forum to convict a President is impeachment and conviction. He wasn’t convicted. The fact Republicans didn’t convict is irrelevant. The simple fact is he was found not guilty.

You can not like that verdict, but it doesn’t change the reality. If you think the rule of law is important, then respect it.

Do you think it be good if random red states found charges to bring against Biden to try to put him in prison? If Trump wins the next election, do you want a witch hunt and show trials to try to put Biden in prison? I think this kind of thing destroys democracy.

[Bootstrap]

Let's ask the Constitution what it says about impeaching a President:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So impeachment does not convict the President of a crime, it merely removes him from office. And someone who has been impeached and convicted is still liable to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment according to the law.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that the above clause means a president cannot be liable for just about anything under the law unless first impeached specifically for that. I don't think that's what it says. We'll see what the Supreme Court thinks.

Clearly, Trump is on the ballot. If he wins the vote, he will become president, and I suspect he will pardon a LOT of people, perhaps including himself. It's not at all clear that a president can actually pardon himself, so we may be exploring even more new realms of legal novelty. If he loses, he may be liable for some of what he did while he was president, but a lot depends on the Supreme Court. Regardless, there's probably no time for him to be convicted of anything that could invalidate his candidacy.

[Josh]

The judiciary shouldn’t be in charge of the executive branch.

If the President needs removed. The legislative branch can do that.

If the people want to elect a President, they should be allowed to elect him.

Unelected, unaccountable judges should not be the ones setting policy and deciding if they can remove a President. This is very basic separation of powers, Boot.

[Bootstrap]

This is very basic separation of powers, Boot.

I can't tell what you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me about. Are you responding to something in what I posted? If so, what? Could you take something specific I said, agree with it or disagree with it, and perhaps explain why?

[Josh]

This is very basic separation of powers, Boot.

I can't tell what you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me about. Are you responding to something in what I posted? If so, what? Could you take something specific I said, agree with it or disagree with it, and perhaps explain why?

The separation of powers is that the judiciary (particularly low level state or federal judges) are not in charge of the President, no matter how much they might want to be. The President is accountable to the voters for reelection and Congress for impeachment and the Senate for conviction.