U.S. Electile Dementia paralytica 2024

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Does an 'civil' conviction automatically revoke civil right in the USA?
(white collar crime v. blue collar one)
If not, then it is possible.

Here in the US, a "civil case" is generally a lawsuit. Civil liability usually means you have to pay money damages, but never involves the threat of jail time. The term "convicted" means convicted of a crime. The major distinction is between misdemeanors (minor offenses) and felonies, for which the punishment generally includes mandatory prison time (which however can be, and often is "suspended.") The distinction between violent and on-violent felonies is immaterial.

Theodore Roosevelt once said something like, "A man who rides a horse and has a gun can rob a train. A man who wears a suit and has a degree can rob the whole railroad."

But either way, the short answer to your question is it would not prevent the person from running for President.

In the present instance, the indictment alleges criminal charges (as opposed to a civil action) against the Personality Cultist-in-Chief. (There is also an ongoing civil case brought by the State of New York which could bankrupt him and his organization, but that's another story.)

Since the criminal case almost certainly will not be decided before next year's general election, he will not have been convicted of any crime, so will not be disqualified from office.

But in any case, even a felony conviction does not seem to be a legal impediment to running for (or AFAIK serving as) President of the United States. [unless of course the sentence prescribed by law includes disqualification from serving].

On October 10, 1798 publisher and "Democratic-Republican" (anti-Federalist) US Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont was convicted of violating the Sedition Act of 1798. This was a Lèse-majesté law, making public criticism of public officials a crime. Lyon criticized President John Adams in print. Lyon was convicted of violating the Sedition Act, and sentenced to four months imprisonment, with further confinement until he paid a $1000 fine plus court costs.

Lyon was re-elected while he was incarcerated.

After the election of 1800 wound up a tie in the Electoral College, it went to the US House of Representatives. After thirty-five ballots in the US House without deciding the result, Alexander Hamilton threw his support behind Thomas Jefferson. On February 17, 1801 Jefferson was elected on the thirty-sixth ballot. One State's vote that changed was Vermont. For the first thirty-five ballots, Lewis Morris had voted for Aaron Burr and Matthew Lyon for Jefferson, making Vermont's vote "No result." Morris absented himself on the thirty-sixth ballot and Lyon voted for Jefferson, and the tie was broken.

In more recent times, a loony-tunes conspiratorialist and credit card fraudster named Lyndon Larouche ran for President in 1992 while incarcerated for conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion. He had been sentenced to 15 years, and was paroled after five years. He died in 2019.

I note, however, that convicted felons are not allowed to vote until they have served their sentences (including parole). Convicted felons are also not allowed to possess firearms. So a felony conviction does revoke some civil rights.

[Dr Sardonicus]

In what is (hopefully) the final ruling in Lake v. Hobbs (CV 2022-095403), issued the evening of Monday. May 22, 2023, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson rejected Kari Lake's final claim contesting the results of the 2022 Arizona governor's race.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As to Count III – Signature Verification:
a. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

b. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a
canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

c. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election by
a competent mathematical basis.

Therefore:

IT IS ORDERED: confirming the election of Katie Hobbs as Arizona Governor pursuant
to A.R.S. § 16-676(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that no further matters remain pending, except for costs,
if any, sought by Defendants. In order that an expedited appeal might be taken, Defendants are
ordered to submit a proposed form of judgment with finality language pursuant to Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c) by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 23, 2023. Any objection to the proposed
form of judgment and/or statement of costs must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 24,
2023. The Court will then enter the judgment required by A.R.S. § 16-676 forthwith.