the constitution says you must be 35 to be eligible to serve as president. now, let’s say a presidential nominee was born on february 29, 1972, a leap year. and let’s say they were running in 2024. now, technically, they would only be 13. you could say they were ineligible. but that’s stupid! (1)
Comments
…how does clarifying facts and logic by using facts and logic, move us forward? They have proven themselves immune to facts and logic.
And that is 100% irrelevant.
Take one example from the past few years: the 14th Amendment. It clearly and unambiguously says that anyone who takes part in an insurrection is ineligible to…
And what happened? Nothing. The entire discussion was irrelevant.
“vance
TRUMP
2028”
Vance resigns on day 1 and is re-confirmed as VP on day 2. That’s their plan, anyway. They’ll say (to your point) that the constitution does not specifically bar a two-term president from running for VP. That’s the “loophole”
As is the issue of life events on Leap Day.
365.25 days is a year regardless of what date someone was born on.
Such as permitting judges to remain in the bench in spite of committing crimes -- that's not "good behaviour" -- and letting an adjudicated and impeached insurrectionist into office -- that's accessory to insurrection.
Ya know what, we’ll workshop it.
That’s just my layman theory.
I love your political commentary, but I wouldn't be mad if about 25%+ of your posts were photos of your outfits.
anyone who has been a resident within the US for more than 14 years is ineligible. all presidents have been ineligible.
Ex., if a ‘year’ is defined by planetary rotations around the sun to its initial position at an individual’s time of birth - and a person decides to count in Mercury years, a younger person could be President.
Everything you’ve said is correct and welcome. 12A, last line, forbids his whole plan before one even arrives at 22A.
Autocorrect hates me today.
“The card says moops” is used in oral argument at SCOTUS to mock the textualists, everyone starts laughing uncontrollably. Alito loses his shit & is carried away by men in white shirts.
Clarence Thomas goes to sulk in his Luxury RV, never to emerge again.
And we live happily ever after
Now be honest: can you not see the Trumpers actually trying to use this meme to try to keep a certain Democrat off the ballot, as dumb as it is? Any port in a storm for these monsters.
e.g someone born in 1989 would be elibile for POTUS 9 days after their 2024 birtday which would be exactly 35 years old.
No matter how correct and grand the law may be on paper, its greatness rests entirely on how well it is interpreted and applied for the benefit of everyone.
Law is not a self-sufficient entity.
Happy April fools.
“….…“Jordo Treelight,” a 28-year-old, ….. who happened to be born on February 29, allowing Coach Letterman to exploit a loophole because he technically has had only seven birthdays.”
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1725312/2020/04/06/3yearletterman-background-youth-football-coaching-legend/
There's no reason to think their argument for a third term won't be similar.
The 12th anticipates one means of doing indirectly and expressly rules it out.
But how about this other “indirectly” not ruled out expressly? Answer: doesn’t have to be. Never did.
"What does the vagarity in the Constitution allow us to get away with & how can we break open cracks into the impenetrable?"
Good times.
so, the law is now whatever we it say is.
So, let's say:
Trump's second term is only 60 days.
As such, he is illegally
in the White House
and must be removed.
Asap.
Unless he reinstates the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment.
as if every constitutional hat has a rabbit inside.
The odds of him even being alive in 2028 are much slimmer than he is.
Essentially, intending to undermine the spirit of the law by navigating semantic ambiguity of the written law would be seen not only as an analog to the crime it attempted to “legally” commit, but also an additional charge for the willful attack on the institute of law.
I don't think Trump's hold on SCOTUS is complete enough, and we need not agree with them anyway.
Thank you for your writing and please never stop.
They are asking him about it without pushback.
Thus they are normalizing it.
None of this is accidental.
Trump is taking "third term" for a spin in his golfcart to see how it plays and lays with the media and the public.
Journalists needs to do better
At least it's not supposed to be. With his supreme court, they would probably decline to hear the case.
That's why I cannot take this thought experiment seriously. Because then he wins.
Trump plans to stay in power indefinitely. And it appears Republicans are doing, or are willing to do, all they can to pave that way for him.
This whole "but seriously" from him was meant to steal the news cycle, an effort that's been largely successful.
"Left hand -- 10, 9, 8, 7, 6.
"Right hand -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
"Six and five are 11."
In every system of thought, there are holes that are smoothed over with reason, courtesy, or an appeal to higher values.
That is called civiliization.
either create martial law situattions,
not allow opposition to vote,
mess with the voting machines
or pull a Jan 6.
If you start playing silly word games, the whole system collapses.
This is because their judges have minimal authority to reinterpret, so everything has to be defined in advance.
So for a VP to be a VP and “serve as president” they must also be eligible to be elected president.
Makes me think about those who didn't think about what they were getting in. I still say, many people tend to use words they need understand. One being Narcissism. That's what the 🤡 is.
https://bsky.app/profile/badatom.org/post/3llpp555z532c
“the american constitution does not deal in minutiae. it speaks in generalities with the aim of establishing a limited government of enumerated powers.”
I am satisfied if this precludes a 2nd term for some or a 3rd, 4th term by Trump. 👀
what a fine joke we celebrated it every 4 years
like I said
the "marriage' thing wasn't that important
We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks, but none to beat this paradox.
They might be serious but they should be treated with scorn & hostility.
Vonnegut’s Law goes further: you don’t have to fuck a single goat. You only have to say “I fucked a goat.”
When he cited that, the judge slowly looked up and turned to him like a giant gun turret on a battleship swivelling to take aim...
That's a parallel to constitutions...we can hope...
When people even entertain the idea there could be some legitimacy to any part of it or concede "it's never been tested" R's are already celebrating the win
You read my mind
jamelle for AG
But none to beat this paradox!
Or, on my next birthday will I be 55 and 13 days old?!
Pretty tragic really.
There is no middle ground here.
Read it if you doubt me...
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://youtu.be/wKXtv2_IaCY
Hahahahahahahaha!
Glad to see the Gilbert and Sullivan heads are doing the lords work
I wholeheartedly agree
https://youtu.be/XXhJKzI1u48?si=sA-8_ETLOe65hihn
Just bc leap year only gets around every four years, you've still traveled 365 days each year to get to the next one.
Sorta like "dog years" just 4 instead of 7.😉
Your alleged 13 year old had in fact attained to the age of 52 as of this date in 2024.
The age of eligibility is a bad example of the OP’s point because the exact wording of the eligibility clause is explicit and not the least bit ambiguous.
That's just one example. I can provide others on request. 3/3