header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 November 2023 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 8048 / Categories: Opinion , Constitutional law , International
printer mail-detail

Can Donald Trump stand again?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
146051
Athelstane Aamodt considers whether the US Constitution can put the brakes on the Trump campaign

Although it remains a deeply impressive and important document, there are some undeniable defects with the Constitution of the United States. One of its most glaring errors is that while it sets out various qualifications to be President (he or she must be 35 years or older, must be born in the US, etc), it does not prevent a person convicted of a felony from being eligible to hold that office. This is a strange omission when one considers that the Constitution even makes it clear that there is no religious test for holding public office in the US (Article VI, Clause 3). Why then did a ‘criminal test’ not enter James Madison’s mind when he was drafting the Constitution between 1787 and 1789?

Trump’s second term?

This omission is now being much-discussed given all of the impending criminal trials that Donald Trump faces. Even if he was convicted and imprisoned, he would, if elected,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll