It's way too late for this, but

[Oeditpus Rex]

it just occurred to me in this sense, and maybe it still erits discussion. We'll see.

Given that the operative phrase in an impeachment proceeding is "high cimes and misdemeanors" -- that is, a sitting president shall be removed from office if convicted of same by the Senate -- why is it that a former president (a private citizen) can run again for the presidency having been convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Is it simply because the conviction was by a state court and not a federal one? If so, shouldn't that be changed?

[Ocelot II]

1. "High crimes and misdemeanors" do not necessarily mean statutory crimes.

A president can be impeached for acts that are not crimes under state or federal statutes; furthermore, the acts have to be committed in the course of his presidency. The 34 counts of fraud-related crimes that he committed when he was not the president would not be considered high crimes or misdemeanors because they were not committed in connection with his actual presidency. Those specific crimes, committed before he was president, were his attempt to hide the Stormy Daniels incident and pay her off so it wouldn't negatively affect his election campaign; he was prosecuted in New for falsifying his business records in order to hide other crimes: an illegal campaign contribution, violations of tax laws, and unlawfully influencing the 2016 election. A president who has been impeached, convicted and removed from office can't run for president again, but that doesn't apply to someone who has been convicted of crimes he committed when he wasn't the president. Also, the purpose of the impeachment process is only to determine whether a president should continue to hold his job, not determine whether he committed a prosecutable crime.

[Timewas]

4. High crimes and misdemeaners

The House of Representatives has broad discretion to determine what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" for impeachment purposes.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

2. It is because the Constitution does not have any restriction against people charged with or...

...convicted of a crime--including murder--running for president. The founders probably assumed that the electorate would take that into account when voting.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

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.

[Ocelot II]

3. Exactly. We need to stop voting for criminals

rather than electing them and then trying to get them impeached - which hasn't worked.

[cadoman]

5. it was designed this way I'm sure because they envisioned truly transformative executives/reps may run afoul of the law

But that the electorate may still wish to elect them. There are plenty of laws that most of us view as wrong but are still hard to change.

Of course I'm certain the founding fathers never envisioned that the electorate would vote for a pedophile/rapist/fraudster either...