[ryandrake]

The analogy only falls apart if you are applying a double standard.

You might say "Certain kinds of felonies don't indicate a person is unfit to wield a weapon/the military, and certain kinds do." I'm a supporter of the 2A and I'd listen to that. As long as you intend to apply that across the population.

But if you're saying "A bunch of people don't like this particular conviction against this particular person, so we should have a separate standard for him," well that not how the rule of law works.

[kelipso]

What is a presidential pardon then? Maybe not how rule of law works but it's how democracy works.

[gottorf]

A presidential pardon is an enumerated power of the office under the supreme law of the land, so it's hard to argue that it isn't rule of law.

[gottorf]

If we're talking about the rule of law, there is no law against a convicted felon from either being elected President or being the commander-in-chief. There is only the irony (as the GP brought up) of someone who cannot legally possess a firearm being in charge of the military, but neither irony nor hypocrisy is yet illegal. So I see no problem here.

Is your point that a convicted felon should be legally barred from holding office? Then there is a straightforward legal process to achieve your goals. However, I caution you that politically motivated prosecutions have existed before Trump and will exist after, and that there's probably a better reason than mere oversight that the Constitution places so few limits on who can be voted President.