On May 30 , 2024 , former President Donald Trump wasconvicted on 34 countsof misrepresent concern record .
Previously , he wasindicted on 37 countsby the U.S. Justice Department for mismanage classified document he keep after leave behind role , some of which were labeled " top mystery , " and then obstruct the regime ’s efforts to recover them . ( cornet has said he is barren . ) This is the first meter that a former chairperson has been indicted on Union charges . Trump also faces condemnable probes by the Fulton County district attorney inAtlanta .
According tofederal statute 18 U.S. Code § 2071 , anyone constitute in possession of top - secret file cabinet would not only be dependent tofinesand jail time but would also " be disqualified from holding any office under the United States . "
So , what does that mean for Trump , who is running for President of the United States again in 2024 ? If Trump is indict on condemnable charges , would n’t he receive a lifetime ban from the White House ?
Not so fast , say legal experts .
Under theU.S. Constitution , which lays outthe making for holding the nation ’s highest situation , the only limitations are you must be a U.S. citizen and at least 35 age old . It ’s really hard to unfit someone from running for president , even a convicted criminal .
The Constitution Versus Federal Law
Federal practice of law , and the consequences for break them , are written by Congress , but Congress does n’t have the final word . Even a federal constabulary that ’s been on the books for decade can still be struck down by the Supreme Court if it ’s found to be in violation of the Constitution .
The Constitution ( Article II , Section 1 , article 5 ) understandably set out the qualification for the presidency :
The question is , can Congress write a law that adds qualifications for Union billet — ordisqualificationsin this case — to what ’s already drop a line in the Constitution ? Almost for certain not , say Derek Muller , alaw professorat the University of Iowa College of Law and acontributorto theElection Law Blog . We spoke with him back in 2022 .
" There ’s a pretty full-bodied discernment of law that read Congress can not add together qualifications for federal role , " said Muller . " you may envisage , as a practical matter , why that would be a job . Congress could pass a legislative act that indispose its political enemies or makes it more hard for its disfavored campaigner to bring home the bacon . "
So even if a federal jurisprudence articulate that violators will be disqualified from holding spot , it could be challenged in royal court . And betting odds are very secure that the Supreme Court Justice would hit down the " disqualification " part as unconstitutional and permit the individual run for agency again .
What About the 14th Amendment?
There is , however , a antecedently little - eff clause in the Constitution that disqualifies people from post who have committed one specific crime : revolt .
Section 3 of the 14th Amendmentreads :
" That ’s the only other place in the Constitution that says , this is prohibited doings and we do n’t want individuals serving in government who have assisted in some kind of rebellion , " explain Muller .
division 3 of the 14th Amendment waswritten in the Wake Island of the Civil War , when Congress wanted to forbid any official who service in the Confederacy from have got Union or state of matter power again . In 1872 , that disqualification ( or " handicap " in sound language ) was lifted by Congress for most of the banned officials .
The " disqualification clause " of the 14th Amendment was collecting dust until the Jan. 6 , 2020 , attack on the Capitol and accusations that former President Trump incited the insurrection . But what precisely would it take for Trump or another administration official who had " previously require an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States " to be disqualify from office under the 14th Amendment ?
" There ’s a fortune of debate about that , " say Muller . Does the individual need to be convicted of inciting or supporting a uprising ? Does Congress have to pass a freestanding " enabling legislative act " that identifies the somebody who participated in the insurrection or rebellion ? There are even people who questionwhether the disqualification applies to the presidencyat all .
Yes, You Can Run for President From Prison
Muller added that the framer of the Constitution consciously congeal a " very down bar " of accounting entry for running for part . Unlike European aristocracies , American officeholders did n’t have to own state or be wealthy . That ’s the mantrap of American - flair commonwealth . " Just about anyone can run , " say Muller .
And that lead for convict outlaw and other outlaw . In the 1920 presidential election , the forthright socialistEugene Debscampaigned for president from a federal prison house in Georgia . Debs was charged and convicted of sedition in 1918 for his fiery speech brand America ’s participation in World War I. Running as " Convict No . 9653 , " Debswon 3.5 percent of the votein 1920 .
More lately , the outer boundary politician Lyndon LaRouche ran for Chief Executive three times in the 1990s and other 2000s after serve seven class in a federal prison fordefrauding the IRS .
Running Is One Thing, But What About Actually Winning and Serving?
As Muller said , just about anybody can go for political office in America , but is there a difference between running and bring home the bacon ? And if a criminal or mistrust double-crosser is elected to office , are there other room to withdraw them or indispose them from move again ?
Yes , said Muller . Impeachment is the big one . consort to the Constitution , Congress has the authority to launch impeachment proceedings against " The President , Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States . " If a majority of the House votes to impeach , that ’s followed by a trial in the Senate . If the Senate votes to convict the official of " Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors , " the somebody is removed from office .
Civil officers who have been incriminate by the House admit 15 Union judges ; three President of the United States ( Andrew Johnson , Bill Clinton and Donald Trump who was impeached twice ) ; a cabinet secretarial assistant and a U.S. senator , consort to the U.S. House of Representatives . Only eight of this radical , all Union judges , were convict and removed from office by the Senate .
Disqualification from succeeding part is an optional penalty with impeachment . In its history , the Senate has onlybarred three peoplefrom serving again in the federal government , all federal judges .
Impeachment is the only legitimate constitutional cock to bar someone from berth , but that does n’t mean that Congress has n’t experimented with other methods . In the sixties , an plainspoken Harlem congressman named Adam Clayton Powell embarrassed his fellow worker in the House with some " suboptimal public dealings , " note Muller .
First , the House voted to strip Powell of his commission Post , and then it take an unprecedented step — the House vote to " leave off " Powell from the next Congress . In other actor’s line , they tried to indispose him from situation . Powell sue and the case made it to the Supreme Court , which ruled that the House ’s actions were unconstitutional . ( Powell was so pop in his house dominion that he was elect back to Congress with86 per centum of the suffrage . )
Congress could endeavor to do the same affair with a president . In 2020 , on the same day as the Jan. 6 insurrection,147 Republican congressmen and womenraised objection to evidence President Joe Biden ’s victory over allegation of voter impostor . Congress came close , in other Christian Bible , to turn down to sit an elected president .
" You ’re really in uncharted district at that point , " say Muller . " If a bulk of the Electoral College , which comprise the the great unwashed and the states , has chosen a Chief Executive , it ’s very heavy for Congress to turn around and say we ’re fail to reject that — as a political matter , which is different from the legal question . "
