The 2nd doesn’t work, because you must be eligible for president to run as vice president.
The 22nd amendment is worded in a way that could be interpreted as an eligibility to run for the presidency, not an eligibility to be the president. Theoretically, the supreme court step in and give their interpretation of it.
The 1st is a stretch. To goes so far beyond the meaning and precedent that you might as well annul the whole constitution at that point.
The 2nd doesn’t work, because you must be eligible for president to run as vice president.
As for the speaker, maybe.
The 22nd amendment is worded in a way that could be interpreted as an eligibility to run for the presidency, not an eligibility to be the president. Theoretically, the supreme court step in and give their interpretation of it.
Read the document. It specifically calls out the VP for this. You can’t be elected VP if you can’t be elected president.
Which begs the question, is the 22nd amendment a requirement to be president or just a requirement to get elected as president.
The supreme court can decide.
(I know what the spirit of the law is, but
the letter of the law =/= the spirit of the law)