No - assuming we’re going by the laws. The method of Trump’s election is irrelevant it only matters how many terms he’s served.
A good example of this is Rutherford B Hayes - it’s unclear if he ever won an election through normal means but the house decided he’d be president so he served a term.
If it’s revealed that Trump never technically won in 2016 (which is highly probable given the close margin and election shenanigans) he’d still be ineligible (by current laws) to serve again.
Of course the Supreme Court is a bunch of asshats so who even know what laws are.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t think this is right at all. Whether or not he “technically” won in 2016, the election was officially certified and he went on to serve a 4 year term. That term isn’t invalidated even if electoral irregularities are discovered after the fact.
No - assuming we’re going by the laws. The method of Trump’s election is irrelevant it only matters how many terms he’s served.
A good example of this is Rutherford B Hayes - it’s unclear if he ever won an election through normal means but the house decided he’d be president so he served a term.
If it’s revealed that Trump never technically won in 2016 (which is highly probable given the close margin and election shenanigans) he’d still be ineligible (by current laws) to serve again.
Of course the Supreme Court is a bunch of asshats so who even know what laws are.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t think this is right at all. Whether or not he “technically” won in 2016, the election was officially certified and he went on to serve a 4 year term. That term isn’t invalidated even if electoral irregularities are discovered after the fact.
I noticed that I typoed ineligible to iligible so that might be the source of confusion but… that’s what I was trying to say.
Regardless of how Trump got into office once he’s served two terms he’s done.
Laws are things that other countries have.