law

šŸ”„ | Latest

College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.Ā  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.Ā Ā  Except he doesnā€™t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say ā€œit would be OK if liberals did itā€œ. He didnā€™t say would be ā€œOKā€ with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Yā€™all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You donā€™t get to just throw up your hands and say ā€œthat sounds stupid so itā€™s not realā€. Itā€™s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.Ā  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.Ā Ā  Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I donā€™t even think itā€™s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldnā€™t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.Ā  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.Ā Ā  Except he doesnā€™t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say ā€œit would be OK if liberals did itā€œ. He didnā€™t say would be ā€œOKā€ with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Yā€™all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You donā€™t get to just throw up your hands and say ā€œthat sounds stupid so itā€™s not realā€. Itā€™s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.Ā  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.Ā Ā  Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I donā€™t even think itā€™s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldnā€™t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.

coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said ā€˜donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Iā€™m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isnā€™t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least thatā€™s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isnā€™t that complicated.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said ā€˜donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Iā€™m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isnā€™t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least thatā€™s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isnā€™t that complicated.

urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of ...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said ā€˜donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I donā€™t doubt someone would argue it, but itā€™s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ā€˜well thereā€™s no law saying the parties canā€™t run a dog for electionā€™ type of crap. ā€œBeing elected is the default way to become presidentā€ Yes but itā€™s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not itā€™s a stupid argument is beside the point. Weā€™re talking about theoretical legality.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said ā€˜donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I donā€™t doubt someone would argue it, but itā€™s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ā€˜well thereā€™s no law saying the parties canā€™t run a dog for electionā€™ type of crap. ā€œBeing elected is the default way to become presidentā€ Yes but itā€™s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not itā€™s a stupid argument is beside the point. Weā€™re talking about theoretical legality.

hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of...

College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.Ā  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.Ā Ā  Except he doesnā€™t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say ā€œit would be OK if liberals did itā€œ. He didnā€™t say would be ā€œOKā€ with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Yā€™all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You donā€™t get to just throw up your hands and say ā€œthat sounds stupid so itā€™s not realā€.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.Ā  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.Ā Ā  Except he doesnā€™t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say ā€œit would be OK if liberals did itā€œ. He didnā€™t say would be ā€œOKā€ with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Yā€™all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You donā€™t get to just throw up your hands and say ā€œthat sounds stupid so itā€™s not realā€.

coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likel...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is thatĀ ā€œItā€™s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!ā€ It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I haveā€¦ opinionsā€¦ on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ā€˜well heā€™s only ineligible to be ELECTEDā€™ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying youā€™re allowed to be in a house because while they said donā€™t come in this doorā€™ you came in through the WINDOW. You canā€™t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it ā€œstupid shenanigansā€ all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. Iā€™m certainly not in support of this idea, Iā€™m just saying you canā€™t hand wave a legal argument because youā€™re pretty sure it meant something thatā€™s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said ā€œno former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstancesā€, but it doesnā€™t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.

hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questi...

Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesnā€™t seem possible givenĀ ā€œNo person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.ā€and at first i thought thisā€™d be a good way to secure trump his second term, butā€¦ judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.Itā€™s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldnā€™t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being ā€œelectedā€ to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldnā€™t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 i read that article and it still doesnā€™t seem possible givenĀ ā€œNo person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.ā€and at first i thought thisā€™d be a good way to secure trump his second term, butā€¦ judging by the sheer amount of lunatics in usa atm, a kinda technicality shadow president could have a chance, which would be terrifying and dangerous tbh. The article lose things out pretty clearly, and I summarize it in the OP: the exact wording of the 22nd amendment says that a person cannot be ELECTED more than twice to the office of president. It does not prohibit someone becoming president through a line of succession, Having not been directly elected to the office. A former president would not be constitutionally ineligible based on those parameters.Itā€™s a loophole in the wording but the law is literally build on loopholes. A constitutional lawyer could and would argue this if they tried to make it happen. Now this article also points out they almost certainly wouldnā€™t try to make it happen because of the backlash and lack of likelihood that the electoral college would approve such a ticket. But it is theoretically possible.

terrapinfox: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but...

Animals, Children, and Dating: 19:08 f Okay, so propaganda has already taken over, and the news and media blackout isn't helping the sanitization and colorization that western media has already fallen victim to, so l'm just gonna give you the breakdown asl know it: 05:46 Protests started a week ago after 2 kids got run over and killed by a bus. Protests were peaceful with most kids (ages 10-18) taking over the jobs that cops are supposed to be doing instead of taking bribes and scratching their asses. 05:47 At first, they led to runaway traffic, but over 2-3 days, they established a radical improvements in traffic control and safety, clearing up the roads that were previously horrendously chaotic. Not a single civilian had a complaint. No uproars, no violence, nothing. Probably the best civil movement in the history of this country... all by children 05:48 The blame for the prevailing lack of safety and order was rightfully placed on a senion government official - one of the most corrupt and evil of the bunch: the shipping minister. He fueled the civilian's outrage by citing accidents irn neighboring countries and sidestepped the issue quite shamelessly 05:50 Civilians called for his discharge, and students demanded traffic system reforms to ensure safety and alleviation of chaos 05:51 And that's when things started going South 05:51 Message 19:08 f And that's when things started going South. 05-51 The government tasked the BCL - their student activist wing - with"reasoning" with these kids Now these BCL animals are well known terrorists, with a track record of violence, rape, torture, vandalism, etc. etc. dating back almost three decades. 05:53 They reasoned with the kids alright. By shooting at them and striking them with machetes and metal bars. All while being protected by the police - who themselves shot at the kids with beanbags and choked them with teargas grenades. 05:54 Reports are all over the place. It didn't take long for the government to have the cell providers shut down all mobile internet services, so photoS and videos are few and far between. Facebook is the most popular social media platform, but it's heavily monitored and censored 05:55 Several nundred children and young adults hospitalized - some in critical condition, some requiring amputations, most severely injured Several children are still missing 05:56 Eyewitness accounts without sufficient evidence (but I wouldn't put it past these BCL animals) 3 school boys were murdered on the spot with guns and machetes. Four school girls were abducted and gang raped 05:58 One boy had his eyes gouged out in front of Message 19:08 f One boy had his eyes gouged out in front of hundreds of other children. (Some evidence present) 05:58 Several women. including a reporter, have been molested and abused by BCL pigs. (Confirmed and evidenced) 05:58 Reporters at the scenes were brĆŗtally beaten, had their equipment destroyed, and threatened with death 05:59 The government run hospitals have refused admission to students of any kind, some have completely shut down. Some privately-run hospitals are struggling with the influx of injuries and deaths, but they re being forced by the government to deny treatment 06:00 Med students and interns in one private hospital have taken to the streets in protest, for not being allowed to treat children in dire situations because of orders from higher-up 06:01 Last night police raided a large residential area which houses families as well as students of the neighboring private universities - the police were formed in their usual riot configuration, but only this time, hundreds of BCL thugs were lined up behind them 06:02 No reports from the situation there yet. 06:02 and that's all I got so fa .02 Message 19:09 f Beating children to death and disability - direct violation of basic human rights and international law 15:06 This shit is fucked 15:06 All being executed by the government and law enforcement. I think they're raiding homes tonight They did last night in one small region. But it 15:06 15:06 might go city wide tonight. I've been hearing stuff Go on twitter. Look up #WeWantJustice . We are begging the rest of the world to spread 15:07 . 15:07 15:08 15:08 the message, images, videos, everything ... 15:08 l he media blackout here has silenced any online presence the real situation has 15:08 No one knows what's actually happening. Not even ourselves 15:09 Message [Serious] This is happening RIGHT NOW in Bangladesh
Animals, Children, and Dating: 19:08 f Okay, so propaganda has already taken over, and the news and media blackout isn't helping the sanitization and colorization that western media has already fallen victim to, so l'm just gonna give you the breakdown asl know it: 05:46 Protests started a week ago after 2 kids got run over and killed by a bus. Protests were peaceful with most kids (ages 10-18) taking over the jobs that cops are supposed to be doing instead of taking bribes and scratching their asses. 05:47 At first, they led to runaway traffic, but over 2-3 days, they established a radical improvements in traffic control and safety, clearing up the roads that were previously horrendously chaotic. Not a single civilian had a complaint. No uproars, no violence, nothing. Probably the best civil movement in the history of this country... all by children 05:48 The blame for the prevailing lack of safety and order was rightfully placed on a senion government official - one of the most corrupt and evil of the bunch: the shipping minister. He fueled the civilian's outrage by citing accidents irn neighboring countries and sidestepped the issue quite shamelessly 05:50 Civilians called for his discharge, and students demanded traffic system reforms to ensure safety and alleviation of chaos 05:51 And that's when things started going South 05:51 Message 19:08 f And that's when things started going South. 05-51 The government tasked the BCL - their student activist wing - with"reasoning" with these kids Now these BCL animals are well known terrorists, with a track record of violence, rape, torture, vandalism, etc. etc. dating back almost three decades. 05:53 They reasoned with the kids alright. By shooting at them and striking them with machetes and metal bars. All while being protected by the police - who themselves shot at the kids with beanbags and choked them with teargas grenades. 05:54 Reports are all over the place. It didn't take long for the government to have the cell providers shut down all mobile internet services, so photoS and videos are few and far between. Facebook is the most popular social media platform, but it's heavily monitored and censored 05:55 Several nundred children and young adults hospitalized - some in critical condition, some requiring amputations, most severely injured Several children are still missing 05:56 Eyewitness accounts without sufficient evidence (but I wouldn't put it past these BCL animals) 3 school boys were murdered on the spot with guns and machetes. Four school girls were abducted and gang raped 05:58 One boy had his eyes gouged out in front of Message 19:08 f One boy had his eyes gouged out in front of hundreds of other children. (Some evidence present) 05:58 Several women. including a reporter, have been molested and abused by BCL pigs. (Confirmed and evidenced) 05:58 Reporters at the scenes were brĆŗtally beaten, had their equipment destroyed, and threatened with death 05:59 The government run hospitals have refused admission to students of any kind, some have completely shut down. Some privately-run hospitals are struggling with the influx of injuries and deaths, but they re being forced by the government to deny treatment 06:00 Med students and interns in one private hospital have taken to the streets in protest, for not being allowed to treat children in dire situations because of orders from higher-up 06:01 Last night police raided a large residential area which houses families as well as students of the neighboring private universities - the police were formed in their usual riot configuration, but only this time, hundreds of BCL thugs were lined up behind them 06:02 No reports from the situation there yet. 06:02 and that's all I got so fa .02 Message 19:09 f Beating children to death and disability - direct violation of basic human rights and international law 15:06 This shit is fucked 15:06 All being executed by the government and law enforcement. I think they're raiding homes tonight They did last night in one small region. But it 15:06 15:06 might go city wide tonight. I've been hearing stuff Go on twitter. Look up #WeWantJustice . We are begging the rest of the world to spread 15:07 . 15:07 15:08 15:08 the message, images, videos, everything ... 15:08 l he media blackout here has silenced any online presence the real situation has 15:08 No one knows what's actually happening. Not even ourselves 15:09 Message [Serious] This is happening RIGHT NOW in Bangladesh

[Serious] This is happening RIGHT NOW in Bangladesh

Fire, Future, and Guns: NY AG Underwood @NewYorkStateAG To be clear, it was the Trump ad- min that decided to give criminals the tools to build untraceable, undetectable 3-D printed guns at the touch of a button That's why we sued. on.ny.gov 2LznSLv Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn't seem to make much sense! <p><a href="http://amalgamasreal.tumblr.com/post/176527642745/friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">amalgamasreal</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt.tumblr.com/post/176491719675/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176491236610/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486816978/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486495640/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-liberalsarecool-another" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486223328/kasaron-liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486019980/liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy-creating" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://liberalsarecool.com/post/176483209782/another-trump-policy-creating-the-worst-outcome" class="tumblr_blog">liberalsarecool</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Another <b>Trump</b> policy creating the worst outcome. #3DPrintedGuns</p> <p>Trump saying ā€˜it doesnā€™t make much senseā€™ should be his campaign slogan.</p> <p>The abdication to the NRA is GOP law.</p> </blockquote> <p>The tools to build 3D printed guns have existed since at least the Obama Administration.</p> <p style=""><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)</a><br/></p> <p style="">The gun was designed in 2013.Ā </p> <p>The issue was not the existence of the gun itself, but the fact that if the Liberator (and other 3D printed gun files) wereĀ ā€œweapons of warā€ that would possibly violate ITAR.</p> <p>That adjudication resulted in the government (and ITAR specifically) being sued by Cody Wilson. The government settled out of court and openly admitted their wrongdoing as part of the settlement.Ā </p> <p>I will repeat; the 3D printing and manufacture of firearms was <i>never</i>Ā illegal in the US, only the international distribution of the files themselves. Even the distribution of the files within US borders and possession of the files themselves are all and were all legal.Ā </p> </blockquote> <p>I have no issues with people owning guns legally but I donā€™t think Iā€™m ok with them being able to print a gun. </p> </blockquote> <p style="">Would you be willing to explain why?</p> </blockquote> <p>See, my reasons only make sense to me and the environment I grew up in but I donā€™t see a reason for an individual to be able to make a gun whenever they want. I know most probably wonā€™t do anything illegal with the gun but I also think the gun might not be safe to useā€¦I have never used a 3D gun or know much about them so they could be perfectly safe to use. </p> </blockquote> <p>Generally, polymer is a less than stellar material to make a gun out of; thatā€™s why the Liberator is basically a single-shot low-power gun. Itā€™s a proof of concept to show it Can Be Done and thereby challenge the idea of controlling ownership of firearms as a whole.</p> <p>Since it has been adjudicated that code (and files) are themselves a form of speech; sharing that ā€œspeechā€ in an open forum is, by default, legal and protected.</p> <p>The issue is, people (for a variety of reasons) already DO make untracable firearms, from 80% lowers, from raw stock, from scrap metal, etc. Theyā€™re rarely if ever used in criminal activities, mostly because criminals can just buy an illegal (but legitimately manufactured) firearm either which were illegally purchased themselves, stolen, or gotten thanks to programs like ATFs Fast and Furious and other gunwalking schemes.</p> </blockquote> <p>as for fears about criminals building untraceable guns, they can almost certainly do it better for cheaper with scrap metal &amp; metal working shop tools. 3d printers arent cheap &amp; polymer guns dont last, as <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/miMjDZnDWnZqZODmSVuibaw">@kasaron</a> has already noted. assuming that they dont just buy black market factory made guns, which are much better quality for much less effort.</p> <p>&amp; some people have this ridiculously idea that a polymer gun is totally undetectable by security scanners &amp; can be taken ANYWHERE. yeah, they arent, &amp; they still require metal bullets.</p> </blockquote> <p>Anyone whoā€™s worried about 3d printed guns has <b>NEVER </b>actually had or used a 3d printer. Iā€™ve got 5 of them, ranging from $300 chinese DIY kits to $4500 ā€œprosumerā€ fully assembled devices, and not a single one can make a gun that Iā€™d be willing to fire with any form of reliability or safety. The tolerances and durability just arenā€™t there.Ā </p> <p>The best I could make would be that Liberator up there and the chances that it might just explode in my hand on the first shot arenā€™t low.Ā </p> <p>The people whoā€™ve made the fully functional AR lowers arenā€™t doing it using a 3D printer you can just buy off the shelf, theyā€™d using industrial grade SLA resin printers that <b>START</b>Ā in the 5 figures and if you want the metal additive printers youā€™re not walking away without spending 6 figures. At that price point they can just buy metal working equipment and make real metal guns by the dozen in the time it would take to print a single gun.Ā </p> <p>Now: I canā€™t speak for the future, 3d printers might change, but the direction theyā€™re moving in now does not lend to making guns in the least bit; and stifling the entire branch of technology out of idiotic fear of a possibility is the last thing we need to do.</p> <p>Also: THEREā€™S ALREADY OVER 300 MILLION GUNS IN THE US AND IT WOULD BE WAY EASIER AND CHEAPER TO JUST BUY/STEAL ONE OF THOSE THAN PRINT ONE.Ā </p> </blockquote> <p>This is what Iā€™m saying. The school I work at has a 3-D printer and by no means would it be capable of making a gun you would want to use. Not only would trying to prevent the program from being downloaded be an enormous waste of time, most criminals wouldnā€™t even be bothered with it when there are much easier ways to get a gun.</p>
Fire, Future, and Guns: NY AG Underwood @NewYorkStateAG To be clear, it was the Trump ad- min that decided to give criminals the tools to build untraceable, undetectable 3-D printed guns at the touch of a button That's why we sued. on.ny.gov 2LznSLv Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn't seem to make much sense! <p><a href="http://amalgamasreal.tumblr.com/post/176527642745/friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">amalgamasreal</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt.tumblr.com/post/176491719675/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176491236610/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486816978/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486495640/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-liberalsarecool-another" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486223328/kasaron-liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486019980/liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy-creating" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://liberalsarecool.com/post/176483209782/another-trump-policy-creating-the-worst-outcome" class="tumblr_blog">liberalsarecool</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Another <b>Trump</b> policy creating the worst outcome. #3DPrintedGuns</p> <p>Trump saying ā€˜it doesnā€™t make much senseā€™ should be his campaign slogan.</p> <p>The abdication to the NRA is GOP law.</p> </blockquote> <p>The tools to build 3D printed guns have existed since at least the Obama Administration.</p> <p style=""><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)</a><br/></p> <p style="">The gun was designed in 2013.Ā </p> <p>The issue was not the existence of the gun itself, but the fact that if the Liberator (and other 3D printed gun files) wereĀ ā€œweapons of warā€ that would possibly violate ITAR.</p> <p>That adjudication resulted in the government (and ITAR specifically) being sued by Cody Wilson. The government settled out of court and openly admitted their wrongdoing as part of the settlement.Ā </p> <p>I will repeat; the 3D printing and manufacture of firearms was <i>never</i>Ā illegal in the US, only the international distribution of the files themselves. Even the distribution of the files within US borders and possession of the files themselves are all and were all legal.Ā </p> </blockquote> <p>I have no issues with people owning guns legally but I donā€™t think Iā€™m ok with them being able to print a gun. </p> </blockquote> <p style="">Would you be willing to explain why?</p> </blockquote> <p>See, my reasons only make sense to me and the environment I grew up in but I donā€™t see a reason for an individual to be able to make a gun whenever they want. I know most probably wonā€™t do anything illegal with the gun but I also think the gun might not be safe to useā€¦I have never used a 3D gun or know much about them so they could be perfectly safe to use. </p> </blockquote> <p>Generally, polymer is a less than stellar material to make a gun out of; thatā€™s why the Liberator is basically a single-shot low-power gun. Itā€™s a proof of concept to show it Can Be Done and thereby challenge the idea of controlling ownership of firearms as a whole.</p> <p>Since it has been adjudicated that code (and files) are themselves a form of speech; sharing that ā€œspeechā€ in an open forum is, by default, legal and protected.</p> <p>The issue is, people (for a variety of reasons) already DO make untracable firearms, from 80% lowers, from raw stock, from scrap metal, etc. Theyā€™re rarely if ever used in criminal activities, mostly because criminals can just buy an illegal (but legitimately manufactured) firearm either which were illegally purchased themselves, stolen, or gotten thanks to programs like ATFs Fast and Furious and other gunwalking schemes.</p> </blockquote> <p>as for fears about criminals building untraceable guns, they can almost certainly do it better for cheaper with scrap metal &amp; metal working shop tools. 3d printers arent cheap &amp; polymer guns dont last, as <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/miMjDZnDWnZqZODmSVuibaw">@kasaron</a> has already noted. assuming that they dont just buy black market factory made guns, which are much better quality for much less effort.</p> <p>&amp; some people have this ridiculously idea that a polymer gun is totally undetectable by security scanners &amp; can be taken ANYWHERE. yeah, they arent, &amp; they still require metal bullets.</p> </blockquote> <p>Anyone whoā€™s worried about 3d printed guns has <b>NEVER </b>actually had or used a 3d printer. Iā€™ve got 5 of them, ranging from $300 chinese DIY kits to $4500 ā€œprosumerā€ fully assembled devices, and not a single one can make a gun that Iā€™d be willing to fire with any form of reliability or safety. The tolerances and durability just arenā€™t there.Ā </p> <p>The best I could make would be that Liberator up there and the chances that it might just explode in my hand on the first shot arenā€™t low.Ā </p> <p>The people whoā€™ve made the fully functional AR lowers arenā€™t doing it using a 3D printer you can just buy off the shelf, theyā€™d using industrial grade SLA resin printers that <b>START</b>Ā in the 5 figures and if you want the metal additive printers youā€™re not walking away without spending 6 figures. At that price point they can just buy metal working equipment and make real metal guns by the dozen in the time it would take to print a single gun.Ā </p> <p>Now: I canā€™t speak for the future, 3d printers might change, but the direction theyā€™re moving in now does not lend to making guns in the least bit; and stifling the entire branch of technology out of idiotic fear of a possibility is the last thing we need to do.</p> <p>Also: THEREā€™S ALREADY OVER 300 MILLION GUNS IN THE US AND IT WOULD BE WAY EASIER AND CHEAPER TO JUST BUY/STEAL ONE OF THOSE THAN PRINT ONE.Ā </p> </blockquote> <p>This is what Iā€™m saying. The school I work at has a 3-D printer and by no means would it be capable of making a gun you would want to use. Not only would trying to prevent the program from being downloaded be an enormous waste of time, most criminals wouldnā€™t even be bothered with it when there are much easier ways to get a gun.</p>

<p><a href="http://amalgamasreal.tumblr.com/post/176527642745/friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">amalgamasreal</a>:...