On my Facebook feed, someone is claiming that a certain candidate for President is disqualified because they broke some federal law, which has a penalty that precludes violators from holding any federal office. Nevermind the particulars, is it even possible?
I thought that since the qualifications for President are set by the Constitution, that only an amendment can change them. Can a federal statute add additional requirements to be President?
A felony conviction does not preclude holding federal office, and in fact someone could technically serve even if in prison.
Also, merely alleging someone broke a felony law when no trial or conviction has taken place doesn’t mean anything.
The qualifications to be U.S. President are contained in Article two of the Constitution and the 22nd amendment. Article two says “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The 22nd amendment says (in relevant part) that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once…”
You are right that federal law can’t overrule the constitution, and only an amendment could change it. So you are also right that no federal statute could impose additional requirements.
I’d be interested in what federal law was broken and purportedly prevents the person from holding federal office. The first question would be whether the presidency is a “federal office” as used in that statute. The next question would be how quickly the Supreme Court could shoot down anyone that thought it applied to a president-elect.
My guess is that it’s the Hillary E-mail scandal. I’ve had several people insist to me that if Congress could just nail her down on that one, she’d be disqualified from even running.
One person insisted that erasing e-mails/having a separate server was a crime of treason which they say is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as disqualifying you from President.
Treason is used seven times in the Constitution. In none of those cases is anything said that could remotely be interpreted as disqualifying someone convicted from holding federal office, the Presidency, or any other position of any kind anywhere. Total hogwash.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which doesn’t use the word “treason”, nevertheless effectively bars most people guilty of treason from the Presidency or any other federal or state office:
Anyone convicted of treason, by definition within Article III, would either have engaged in insurrection or given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And most politicians have taken an oath at some point to support the Constitution, although a newcomer like Donald Trump may not have.
Of course this clause is not self-executing and one may legitimately ask who would enforce it in the case of a President-elect. I don’t intend to lose any sleep over it.
Hmmm, that almost makes their argument seem reasonable and based on evidence. Almost. Certainly more than I expected from that person. 
Of course, no matter how bad erasing e-mails may be, it’s not aiding an enemy of the US in Hillary’s case. I guess they’d argue that not preventing Bengazi represents such aid… ::sigh:: You can’t win with some people.
Two points. One is that treason is not insurrection or rebellion. (It may be aid and comfort to enemies, though.) The other is that the Amendment consciously omits the Presidency.
The problem with this particular topic is the US State Department said on a recent CNN story that there is no prohibition (policy / regulation / law) preventing State from using non-government email. Former Sec. of State Powell has already said he used private email for official business.
Yeah, from Hillary email frenzy. The alleged disqualification is from
“US Code Title 18:
Sec. 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
I’m not seeing how that could prevent someone from serving as President (or in Congress or on the Supreme Court).
No.
18 USC § 2071, to pick one example, does indeed forbid any person convicted under its terms from thereafter holding “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” So theoretically, Mrs. Clinton’s conviction – if it ever happened, an idea I accept only for the very limited purpose of discussing your question – under that statute would bar her from again serving as Secretary of State.
But Congress cannot impose such a rule on a Constitutional office like the Presidency. So while her hypothetical conviction would bar her from serving as a US Marshal, it wouldn’t stop her from being President.
Correct as far as it goes, Colibri, but this is a question about a specific federal conviction as opposed to a generic federal felony. You’re right that there’s no general rule about holding federal office after a felony conviction, but in this case the disability of being ineligible for federal office is part of the specific provisions of the specific law.
Again, though, Congress can’t impose such a requirement on the office of President.
That and it bars those holding offices or previously holding office. The common person could participate in insurrection or rebellion and still take office as did some former CSA army officers.
Insurrection or rebellion is “making war against the United States”, and that is treason as per the Constitution.
Using improper protocol to send e-mails, however, is quite unambiguously not treason.
Is it? Couldn’t you be convicted of insurrection or rebellion without the testimony of two witnesses or confession in open court?
Is it? Couldn’t you be convicted of insurrection or rebellion without the testimony of two witnesses or confession in open court?
That’s not the issue. The issue is the reverse. Can you “levy war” against the United States without engaging in “insurrection” or “rebellion”? I submit not.
Are you sure about that? Wouldn’t the presidency be a civil office of the United States?
I see no mention of the president or vice-president in the above. I don’t think you could make a case that the president or vice-president is just some “officer”.
I would imagine the actual alleged offense would be disclosing classified information, which could in theory provide “aid and comfort to the enemy.”
In theory.