IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol

I'm gonna reiterate what I wrote in another comment:

Basically, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn't specify how the ineligibility clause is invoked. Because it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Is it:

A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.

B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection, then they become inelligible.

C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection, then they become inelligible

D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.

E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.

Because the problems are:

A is just dumb,

B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.

C also allows partisan shenanigans

D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.

E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection. Not to mention, it'd require enough evidence to convince a jury to convict for something serious like insurrection.

So yea they should’ve been more specific. Because the vagueness gives the supreme court the legitimacy to interpret it the way they want to.

Biden is dont do things that seems unlawful. Because in his mind, he doesnt want to set an example for future presidents to reference and use that example to justify doing the same thing.

Also, how do you even prevent someone that wins both the popular vote and electoral college from becoming president? trump supporters would riot and even non-maga military officials would have to recognize trump as the next president.

The thing about democracy is that we all agree to let the person winning take office. Otherwise its just civil war to determine who is the leader.

You seem to have the impression that the US is a Defensive Democracy like in modern day Germany than can ban anti-democratic parties, but the US is not that. The US is a "whoever wins takes office" type of democracy, whether they are pro-democracy or a fascist. We would need to change the whole US culture about democracy if we want to become a Defensive Democracy.

Lol they can bypass the vice president ineligibility part by chosing trump as speaker of the house and then run placeholder candidates for president and vice president, then get rid of them and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.

States run elections. Even if Biden were do try to prevent trump from appearing on the ballot, the states doesnt have to obey, especially if the supreme court's decision is contrary to the president's orders. And if trump appears on ballots, throwing him in prison wont do any good since if elected, as he did in our timeline, he becomes president on January 20th and can order the military to break him out of prison, whether state or federal prison.

And if the states somehow prevented trump from appearing on ballots, we'd be in a constitutional crisis and also a state vs federal government political crisis. Pro trump supporters will cite the supreme court decision as a rallying call to trump supporters around the country to protest, and use violence if necesary.

Well you might say, who cares what his supporters have to say. But the point is if the 14th amendment has a more clear procedures of how to invoke the part about insurrectionists being inelibible. trump could be barred from office and the prorests would've been minimal since the media would portay it as more legitimate. But unfortunately, the 14th amendment is so vague that the supreme court decision would paint a different picture in the media and in public opinion, making it seem like Biden is being tyrannical.

They can chose trump as the speaker of the house (who doesn't need to be a representative) and then get the president and vp to resign, to be removed, or die, and trump becomes acting president for the rest of the term.

Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.

Too bad people who wrote that didn't specify what it meant.

Like does it mean:

A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.

B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection

C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection

D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.

E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.

Because

A is just dumb,

B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.

C also allows partisan shenanigans

D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.

E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.

So yea they should've worded it better on what it means.

Two terms, regardless if consecutive or not.

Technically the limit is on if a person can be elected to the office. It might be possible for a person that have been elected president 2 times to the run for vice president and have a loyalist run as president, then have the loyalist resign after getting sworn in and making the VP president. But a person that isnt eligible for president should not be eligible for vice president either. But we dont know if this means a person who isnt eligible to be elected president can become vice president, since the person can still serve as president, just not elected to it. We don't know since this has never been court tested.

Also if a person serve less than 2 years, they can still run for 2 terms. So even without the "president resign and VP becomes president" shenanigan, a person can technically serve for 10 years minus 1 day.

Also, the speaker of the house does not have to be a member of the house. So technically a person who has been elected 2 terms can be chosen as speaker of the house, then have the president and vice president resign and the person now become acting president for the rest of the term. I'm pretty sure this maneuver doesnt need to go through courts since you can become speaker of the house even if you are inelligible to become president or vice president, so it wouldn't prevent the person from being speaker, and the text on the 22nd amendment only prevents a person form being elected more than twice, no mention of any limit on if a person can serve or act as president.

Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk on political shenanigans.

My state's senator-elect is a republican, pretty sure he doesnt care.

I feel like this just leads to "trans-vestigations" people would accuse you of being a man, even if you are a cisgender woman, if you act slightly "odd" to them.

Nah, the truth is most people dont really care about climate change. My parents just say: "People say the world is ending all the time like they did in 2012" and "don't worry" basically equating climate change to mayan calandar conspiracy theories. 🤦‍♂️ I have a feeling many people actuallt think this way.

We're so cooked, literally and figuratively.

Cant delete xitter if I never had it

taps head