2006-11-26 07:17:31 · 18 answers · asked by William B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
To hold public office means that a person has to be capable of holding the public trust. I guess one would have to know about the criminal history to be able to judge. If it is a crime like "civil disobedience" to protest systemic unfairness, then that should not be a disqualifier. If a person is seeking to be the State Treasurer and has a history of embezzlement. . .then it would be hard to sell the idea that this person would be the ideal candidate for the job.
2006-11-26 07:23:30 · answer #1 · answered by kobacker59 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Are you loopy? Being a lowly regulation breaking dumbass unlawful isn't a loose experience adversarial to breaking our regulations. Sanctuary cities at the instantaneous are not legal. they do exactly not shop on with the regulation, it would not advise something else of the country can't do it for them. Dude, pull your head out. the position contained in the U. S. is there a sanctuary city for US citizen warding off court docket for criminal habit? Why do you imagine we ought to continually have adequate money rights to illegals that US electorate do not have?
2016-11-26 23:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!! would you want someone who murdered individuals, was a thief or burglar, someone convicted of FRAUD or other problems in Public Office, with the Responsibility for decisions on how to use YOUR Taxpayer monies?
2006-11-26 09:03:47 · answer #3 · answered by sglmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should to a certain point depending on the crime. sex offenders no. but specially people who have committed some kind of crime when they were younger and now they are older and have not committed any crimes since they were younger yes.
2006-11-26 07:24:53 · answer #4 · answered by lindahoward76 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, at least we'd know up front that they were criminals instead of finding out once they are in office. :-)
2006-11-26 07:24:31 · answer #5 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, absolutely! as long as they are not a felon they should be able to run. criminal records are public information, let the voters decide!
2006-11-26 07:26:36 · answer #6 · answered by c.a.d 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think so if they've paid their price to society they should be reintegrated with full rights in most instances, sex crimes might be one exception, also Roger K needs spell check or an education
2006-11-26 08:18:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Before Bush I would have said yes. However, seeing the way he has escalated from going AWOL, DUI, and cocaine use to starting an least one illegal and immoral war resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe we should be a little more strict next time.
2006-11-26 07:25:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes you gotta start somewhere if society dont give you a chance who will ,peolple fell to realize,some people change and being turned down everytime your trying to prove yourself does nothing but bring down your selfesteem which leads to bullshit,that could of been avoiled.
2006-11-26 08:21:44 · answer #9 · answered by molly 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why not ! Our House of Rep is full of law breakers hahah
2006-11-26 07:29:21 · answer #10 · answered by mommaknowsbest 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋