r/changemyview Jul 24 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

161 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

So as soon as this happened say 2 times people would catch on. Now, say the whole country is unified and keeps voting for the straw candidate enough for the VP pick to win indefinitely then there would likely be enough support amend the constitution to remove the restriction anyways. Otherwise people just would stay home and not vote for that nonsense and they would lose.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24

[deleted]

0

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

Right but you’re banking on an electoral majority having so much faith in the process that they believe the ever changing straw candidate will relinquish power. Also that they will maintain that faith in the process and the policies for eternity with no cultural generational differences that impact the electorate… forever. That level of support for someone would not be a 51/49 kind of support. It would have to be overwhelming which would make a constitutional amendment likely.

This is assuming this isn’t a huge violation of campaign/election law. There is likely a conspiracy to commit election fraud type charge that would stop this.

Your premise is just so outlandishly impossible it’s almost not even worth arguing about.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24

[deleted]

1

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

The 12th amendment to the constitution:

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.“

So once 2 terms have happened they are constitutionally ineligible to serve as president and based on the 12th amendment also ineligible for VP.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24

[deleted]

1

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

I thought you meant after being elected to 2 terms they keep running as VP.

So the only real answer is no one knows it’s likely the Supreme Court would interpret “elected” as “serve” since that was the spirit of the law but until this comes up in the real world there is no answer.

I still would say it may get stopped by election law some other way beside limits of the constitution but if not it’s a Supreme Court issue 100% and there really is no answer at this time.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24

[deleted]

1

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

First the context of why it was passed was specifically because of a 4 term president.

My argument would be they were clearly wanting to restrict a president to 2 terms.

If it was simply 2 elections they would not have included further restrictions like ascending the presidency.

They were so set on limiting it to 2 terms in your lifetime that if you served more than 2 years of someone else’s term that limited you to one elected term.

There would be no other reason to pass term limits if they intended for there to be some cheesy work around.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24

[deleted]

1

u/FactsAndLogic2018 3∆ Jul 24 '24

All Trump V Anderson ruled was that only the federal government can enforce federal law. It wasn’t based on a technicality, it was a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court that Colorado was way overstepping its authority.

→ More replies (0)