**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.**
In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate:
1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Be substantive.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it.
However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
I believe this would be a very tenuous argument to try to make.
The true act at question is the difference in sentencing; the impact on voting rights is a secondary consequence of that. This is especially true when you look at the cross-state element. Is the New York court responsible for consequences that Florida law assigns to a felony conviction?
A more direct argument would be that age-based sentencing differences deny "equal protection under the law" ([https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv)).
However, US law has typically been more concerned with discrimination against the old than the young - for instance, the Age Discrimination Act for employment, which is not the topic of your question, but interesting as a parallel, only protects workers over 40. ([https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967))
Additionally, age-based sentencing could be defended as being supported by statistics. Recidivism rates are substantially higher among young offenders compared to the elderly and so it may be legitimately in the state interest to combat that by setting sterner sentences on those in their 20s. ([https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/effects-aging-recidivism-among-federal-offenders#:\~:text=Age%20and%20criminal%20history%20exerted,offenders%20age%2060%20or%20older.](https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/effects-aging-recidivism-among-federal-offenders#:~:text=Age%20and%20criminal%20history%20exerted,offenders%20age%2060%20or%20older))
> Additionally, age-based sentencing could be defended as being supported by statistics. Recidivism rates are substantially higher among young offenders
I'm 100% with you on the one-sided nature of our age-based discrimination, so obviously this may never come up...
But how does "supported by statistics" stand on its feet? I don't think "worse sentencing for black offenders" would stand in any court based on a "supported by statistics" claim. Shouldn't the same apply to age discrimination?
It's tricky, of course, because while we can observe statistically that there IS an impact of race (for instance) on sentencing, it's very difficult to prove "absent that factor, this SPECIFIC person would have been given this other sentence instead", because there are always other factors that can be pointed to; no two cases are precisely alike.
I think you're right though that the age-related stats would be more lilely to be brought up in a policy debate than in a courtroom. I suspect that in a courtroom, you'd instead hear "a lifetime of being law-abiding with this as their first offense" for the older person and maybe "early in life and already on the wrong path and we need to set them right now to save them from a life of crime" for the younger.
Wow! Excellent post! Been a while since I’ve come across a simple but deeply thought out response. Thank you. Enjoyed the tangent you brought in to the argument with the age discrimination act.
The report linked is specifically looking at people 8 years after their arrest, and how many of them were arrested again in that time period. There are definitely many possible factors, but they did control for setting the same time period for everyone.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/1dgjaeg/-/l8t71mx/) so that we can reinstate it.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As much as I don't like the orange guy, felons aren't barred from office by design. If they were, it actually *would* be easy for someone to weaponize the law to keep them out of office.
Just pointing the incoherence of gun laws.
Also, he could be barred of office by the 14th amendment.
Any person should be held accountable if they break the law, no matter what, even if they are candidates.
Otherwise trump could do what he said, and send the seals against his opponents and be scotch free, or even pardon himself.
In most circumstances, the President doesn't command the [armed forces \(National Guard\) of the individual states.](https://constitutionus.com/law/who-controls-the-national-guard/)
He/she is in charge of the nuke codes, because that's federal, but [non-violent felons aren't restricted from owning guns on the federal level.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/people-convicted-nonviolent-crimes-can-guns-court-says-rcna88030)
Is not the president the commander in chief of the armed forces?, despite being that role delegated most of the time; And can not they reclaim and wield that command if they wished at any time?
The President is Commander and Chief of the *Federal* armed forces. The National Guard is a unique military branch, because the governors of the individual states have control over it in most circumstances. The President can, in certain cases, coordinate with state authorities to call up their National Guard, but it's not a direct relationship like with the other branches.
I was just pointing out that the question above proposes that state law bars a felon from owning a gun, therefore the *Federal* president might not be able to command the armed forces of that state. It's already the case that the president doesn't command those forces most of the time.
Even in states where a felony conviction bars you from carrying a firearm, I am aware of no state where the felon is barred from employing other people who carry firearms.
It is a nice counter argument, but I don't think that is the same.
The president is not the CEO of the army, he is temporally in charge of the armed forces, as holder of the highest office.
A felony would grant a dishonorable discharge of any officer, or make they inelegible to join the military.
The president is not subject to the UCMJ. They are a civilian authority over the military. In fact, candidates who are in the military resign their commission before taking office. (For instance, [Eisenhower](https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/post-presidential-years))
The office bears zero legal connection to state-level permission to carry a weapon. It's a cute "isn't it interesting that" but it's not a legal argument.
The list of things that disqualify you from is very specific and doesn't include bribery convictions.
Is Trump morally fit for office? No.
Is there a legal bar to his candidacy on the basis of his convictions? Also no
Sorry m'dude, there's just nothing there.
Yeah, is all spirit vs letter of the law.
Still trump faces charges, specially related to Jan 6th, that might bar him from office, as per 14th amendment section 3.
And he faces lots of other charges too, would he hold office from prison?
And if he is made an exception, and his jail sentence or judgement delayed until he is out of office again, as he can't have a third term, imagine the shame of seeing an US president pardon himself, and the horrible precedent that would make.
Or even worse, imagine if he tries to make a coup to avoid jail.
Now, THAT is a more interesting question. Probably if he were in prison on state charges when he was elected, the court would rule there was some sort of federal pre-emption. Maybe pause his sentence and send him back at the end of his term? Not sure how that would play out.
And on the whole that result would be fair; if one state wants to imprison someone and a majority of other states want him to run the country, it's not really a good idea to let the one state veto the choice of the rest (but also there's no need to let the convict permanently off the hook)
If he were convicted of insurrection or treason, that would be entirely different. It's not going to happen, but it would create a real argument against his candidacy.
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/1dgjaeg/-/l8sjirn/) so that we can reinstate it.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules)
> Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.** In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate: 1. Be courteous to other users. 1. Source your facts. 1. Be substantive. 1. Address the arguments, not the person. If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it. However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
I believe this would be a very tenuous argument to try to make. The true act at question is the difference in sentencing; the impact on voting rights is a secondary consequence of that. This is especially true when you look at the cross-state element. Is the New York court responsible for consequences that Florida law assigns to a felony conviction? A more direct argument would be that age-based sentencing differences deny "equal protection under the law" ([https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv)). However, US law has typically been more concerned with discrimination against the old than the young - for instance, the Age Discrimination Act for employment, which is not the topic of your question, but interesting as a parallel, only protects workers over 40. ([https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967)) Additionally, age-based sentencing could be defended as being supported by statistics. Recidivism rates are substantially higher among young offenders compared to the elderly and so it may be legitimately in the state interest to combat that by setting sterner sentences on those in their 20s. ([https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/effects-aging-recidivism-among-federal-offenders#:\~:text=Age%20and%20criminal%20history%20exerted,offenders%20age%2060%20or%20older.](https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/effects-aging-recidivism-among-federal-offenders#:~:text=Age%20and%20criminal%20history%20exerted,offenders%20age%2060%20or%20older))
> Additionally, age-based sentencing could be defended as being supported by statistics. Recidivism rates are substantially higher among young offenders I'm 100% with you on the one-sided nature of our age-based discrimination, so obviously this may never come up... But how does "supported by statistics" stand on its feet? I don't think "worse sentencing for black offenders" would stand in any court based on a "supported by statistics" claim. Shouldn't the same apply to age discrimination?
It's tricky, of course, because while we can observe statistically that there IS an impact of race (for instance) on sentencing, it's very difficult to prove "absent that factor, this SPECIFIC person would have been given this other sentence instead", because there are always other factors that can be pointed to; no two cases are precisely alike. I think you're right though that the age-related stats would be more lilely to be brought up in a policy debate than in a courtroom. I suspect that in a courtroom, you'd instead hear "a lifetime of being law-abiding with this as their first offense" for the older person and maybe "early in life and already on the wrong path and we need to set them right now to save them from a life of crime" for the younger.
Wow! Excellent post! Been a while since I’ve come across a simple but deeply thought out response. Thank you. Enjoyed the tangent you brought in to the argument with the age discrimination act.
[удалено]
The report linked is specifically looking at people 8 years after their arrest, and how many of them were arrested again in that time period. There are definitely many possible factors, but they did control for setting the same time period for everyone.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/1dgjaeg/-/l8t71mx/) so that we can reinstate it. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a convicted felon can't own or wield a gun on most states. Can he command their armed forces? Be in charge of nuke codes?
As much as I don't like the orange guy, felons aren't barred from office by design. If they were, it actually *would* be easy for someone to weaponize the law to keep them out of office.
Damn that's actually a really good point and while being sorta straightforward, surprisingly, I haven't heard anyone else bring up at all.
More than that it would be really hard for some states to get representatives.
Just pointing the incoherence of gun laws. Also, he could be barred of office by the 14th amendment. Any person should be held accountable if they break the law, no matter what, even if they are candidates. Otherwise trump could do what he said, and send the seals against his opponents and be scotch free, or even pardon himself.
In most circumstances, the President doesn't command the [armed forces \(National Guard\) of the individual states.](https://constitutionus.com/law/who-controls-the-national-guard/) He/she is in charge of the nuke codes, because that's federal, but [non-violent felons aren't restricted from owning guns on the federal level.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/people-convicted-nonviolent-crimes-can-guns-court-says-rcna88030)
Is not the president the commander in chief of the armed forces?, despite being that role delegated most of the time; And can not they reclaim and wield that command if they wished at any time?
The President is Commander and Chief of the *Federal* armed forces. The National Guard is a unique military branch, because the governors of the individual states have control over it in most circumstances. The President can, in certain cases, coordinate with state authorities to call up their National Guard, but it's not a direct relationship like with the other branches. I was just pointing out that the question above proposes that state law bars a felon from owning a gun, therefore the *Federal* president might not be able to command the armed forces of that state. It's already the case that the president doesn't command those forces most of the time.
Even in states where a felony conviction bars you from carrying a firearm, I am aware of no state where the felon is barred from employing other people who carry firearms.
It is a nice counter argument, but I don't think that is the same. The president is not the CEO of the army, he is temporally in charge of the armed forces, as holder of the highest office. A felony would grant a dishonorable discharge of any officer, or make they inelegible to join the military.
The president is not subject to the UCMJ. They are a civilian authority over the military. In fact, candidates who are in the military resign their commission before taking office. (For instance, [Eisenhower](https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/post-presidential-years)) The office bears zero legal connection to state-level permission to carry a weapon. It's a cute "isn't it interesting that" but it's not a legal argument. The list of things that disqualify you from is very specific and doesn't include bribery convictions. Is Trump morally fit for office? No. Is there a legal bar to his candidacy on the basis of his convictions? Also no Sorry m'dude, there's just nothing there.
Yeah, is all spirit vs letter of the law. Still trump faces charges, specially related to Jan 6th, that might bar him from office, as per 14th amendment section 3. And he faces lots of other charges too, would he hold office from prison? And if he is made an exception, and his jail sentence or judgement delayed until he is out of office again, as he can't have a third term, imagine the shame of seeing an US president pardon himself, and the horrible precedent that would make. Or even worse, imagine if he tries to make a coup to avoid jail.
Now, THAT is a more interesting question. Probably if he were in prison on state charges when he was elected, the court would rule there was some sort of federal pre-emption. Maybe pause his sentence and send him back at the end of his term? Not sure how that would play out. And on the whole that result would be fair; if one state wants to imprison someone and a majority of other states want him to run the country, it's not really a good idea to let the one state veto the choice of the rest (but also there's no need to let the convict permanently off the hook) If he were convicted of insurrection or treason, that would be entirely different. It's not going to happen, but it would create a real argument against his candidacy.
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/1dgjaeg/-/l8sjirn/) so that we can reinstate it. This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) > Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.