3 ms·
> > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. > Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal bas
by OutOfHere 2y ago
> > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President.
> Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life.
The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... How is that unclear?
- OutOfHere 2y agoHere is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court: The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation. I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.