# If Congress passed a law next week forbidding convicted felons from holding federal office, would it apply to Trump (ex post facto) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [June 1, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394 "2024-06-01T21:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394/1 "2024-06-01T21:48:39Z")
I know that the Constiution forbids _ex post facto_ sentencing. But does that apply to (for lack of a better choice of words) _procedural_ legislation? Specifically, if Congress passed a law next week, and President Biden signed it, that fobids a convicted felon from holding federal office, would it apply to Trump? Or would the Constituion’s _ex post facto_ language mean that Trump can’t be punished in this way? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394/2 "2024-06-01T22:02:01Z")
The requirements for the Presidency are set out in the Constitution. To change those requirements would require an amendment, not a law. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394/3 "2024-06-01T22:02:02Z")
That law could not apply to the offices of president and vice-president. Only an amendment to the constitution would. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394/4 "2024-06-01T22:51:35Z")
A relevant example was the [ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack) by SCOTUS regarding Adam Clayton Powell’s attempt to return to the House after he was sent packing but then re-elected. The specifically cite the constitution as the sole list of requirements to be elected. Strangely, it’s perfectly okay for each body to make and enforce rules regarding their members, e.g., in terms of conduct, etc. I’m not sure if the Santos matter is covered by this. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2024, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-congress-passed-a-law-next-week-forbidding-convicted-felons-from-holding-federal-office-would-it-apply-to-trump-ex-post-facto/1002394/5 "2024-06-01T23:10:14Z")
I think it is worth adding that the SC’s decision that required Colorado to put Trump on the ballot did suggest that if congress passed a law forbidding insurrectionists from running, it could be valid under the 14th amendment. Of course, they would have to define insurrectionist.