• @jj4211
    link
    122 hours ago

    I was curious where precisely it would state that a person disqualified by the 22nd amendment can’t be VP either. I mean it’s common sense, but I haven’t seen it. Of course if they had their heartset on it, one wonders if the could just name him speaker of the house and then have both step down.

    The technicality on the insurrection is that he was never found responsible by any federal court.

    The question is whether they keep trying to “technically” around the Constitution versus dropping all pretense. It seems that, so far, they still value the optics of compliance. But we are so so early in the term…

    • Laurel Raven
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 hours ago

      I’m not seeing it on a quick look either, I thought it was spelled out but I think it’s mainly assumed that since the VP’s only real duties beyond the president of the Senate is as a replacement for the president and would need to actually be able to hold that position to be vp.

      But I think you’re right, that’s just largely held to be the case but not explicitly defined.