• seth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand this line of reasoning and it doesn’t seem like an obvious assumption to me, but am willing to read more about it in order to understand why I might be wrong. Do you have any recommendations for a detailed legal argument for it? My searching is only coming up with opinion articles and none of them seem solid (for either side).

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Look up Eugene V. Debs. And yes, this is an opinion, not a legal question. We’re talking about which laws should govern who gets to run for President, and I feel like they’re already too restrictive as they are.

    • Instigate@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      While not a legal argument, look up Alexei Navalny in Russia. He’s been the leader of the country’s opposition party for some time and beyond his attempted assassination, he’s become a political prisoner and has been trying to maintain political status from gaol. He absolutely should be able to run and would objectively be a better president for the average Russian than Putin is.

      While it’s not an American example, it’s a general example of why people who are technically criminals (in his case, a political prisoner) should be able to run for office - even from gaol.

      It’s one of those situations where a protection needs to be in place that, sadly, can also be abused by bad actors.