Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles has proposed legislation that would amend the Constitution, allowing Donald Trump to run for a third presidential term. “I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment...
New GOP bill would let Trump (but not Obama) run for a third term [another source]
Seeing as he’s literally already ineligible to be president this time since he incited an insurrection, and his entire second administration and everything it does is by extension illegal and unconstitutional
I was curious where precisely it would state that a person disqualified by the 22nd amendment can’t be VP either. I mean it’s common sense, but I haven’t seen it. Of course if they had their heartset on it, one wonders if the could just name him speaker of the house and then have both step down.
The technicality on the insurrection is that he was never found responsible by any federal court.
The question is whether they keep trying to “technically” around the Constitution versus dropping all pretense. It seems that, so far, they still value the optics of compliance. But we are so so early in the term…
I’m not seeing it on a quick look either, I thought it was spelled out but I think it’s mainly assumed that since the VP’s only real duties beyond the president of the Senate is as a replacement for the president and would need to actually be able to hold that position to be vp.
But I think you’re right, that’s just largely held to be the case but not explicitly defined.
He’d be ineligible to be vice president as well
Not that this would stop them, of course
Seeing as he’s literally already ineligible to be president this time since he incited an insurrection, and his entire second administration and everything it does is by extension illegal and unconstitutional
I was curious where precisely it would state that a person disqualified by the 22nd amendment can’t be VP either. I mean it’s common sense, but I haven’t seen it. Of course if they had their heartset on it, one wonders if the could just name him speaker of the house and then have both step down.
The technicality on the insurrection is that he was never found responsible by any federal court.
The question is whether they keep trying to “technically” around the Constitution versus dropping all pretense. It seems that, so far, they still value the optics of compliance. But we are so so early in the term…
I’m not seeing it on a quick look either, I thought it was spelled out but I think it’s mainly assumed that since the VP’s only real duties beyond the president of the Senate is as a replacement for the president and would need to actually be able to hold that position to be vp.
But I think you’re right, that’s just largely held to be the case but not explicitly defined.