@@claiborneeastjr4129 There were all kinds of rumors that Biden who was so daft and addle brained would resign immediately after the mid terms in '22 giving Harris a chance to serve nearly 10 years.
Did you hear what you said. Someone who takes over more than 2 years into the term, can only be elected once. What you read in the 22nd said if they serve in the position more than two years!
"... and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
@@jasonbrown3925 If you ask 5 attorneys to interperate a law you will get 7 opinions. But the old guys and gals in robes in DC have the last say. Always did and always will. That is why you write law carefully. The preamble to the law should be very specific and outline the aims of the law. However if an ex-president tries the succession approach via a “fake Presidential candidacy/resignation” all hell will break out. I can guarantee that.
If a ticket contained a former two term President running as vice president, i believe, I hope, the average voter would disapprove of such technical shenanigans to vote against it.
@@jasonbrown3925 j think the "average" voter has a sense of fair play and would condemn it whether a Republican or a Democrat tried it. Which is not to say I wouldn't much prefer Trump's son as president than Biden's son.
Actually, a former two-term president wouldn't be eligible to run as VP, because in order to be eligible to run as VP, a candidate must be eligible to rise to the office of president.
When someone does try to take advantage of that loophole, it would be challenged in the US Supreme Court. Since the US Supreme Court is always being stacked with partisan justices, it will probably be determined by which side has the majority and and the individual in question that is running. The US Supreme Court has ruled contrary to Amendments under the Bill of Rights before, namely the 4th Amendment so they would have no problem ruling on the 22nd Amendment according to which party it favors.
@@rongendron8705 If LBJ had run, won, and served the full second term he would have earned the title of the second longest serving President with about 9 years 2 months.
So is Obama. As explained, assume he runs as VP. If his President nominee is elected. that nominee can swear in on Jan 20, then resign. Obama then becomes President for a third term.
@@rickemery9927 If someone is ineligible to run for President, and Obama is not since he's already served two full terms, then that someone is ineligible to serve as VP, since the Constitutional requirements are identical.
I've actually had this discussion before. You'd have to find a candidate who was strong enough to be elected but who was willing to step down upon being elected. Or else, someone who is transparent about what was going to happen so the voters were making an informed decision. In either case, there would be all kinds of legal challenges and proposals for change. Personally, I would never trust anyone who was so hungry for power that they would manipulate the system like this.
Honestly, I'm surprised Harris didn't have Biden 25th in late January 2023 for the same reason mentioned above. Maybe she just wasn't confident she could get elected twice more by the DNC?
It hadn't been much of a problem prior to the 22nd amendment, this was just enacted to prevent future issues. FDR won 4 terms even though he died only a couple months into his 4th term. In general, Presidents had typically not tried for a 3rd and most of them weren't even physically up to it even if they had wanted it.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade, right, everyone before Roosevelt (except Roosevelt) followed George Washington's lead and did not seek a third term. Teddy tried and failed, FDR succeeded.
@@sm5574, well, Teddy was pissed off at the other Republican candidate enough to split the Republican party. Unfortunately, that means we got Wilson instead. I kind of wonder what would have happened if the Bull Moose party would have survived and the Elephant party died off.... Either way, the Democrats would have done the same thing.
I agree, the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim and the voters in that election are not likely to expect that to happen. The SCOTUS may even decide that that's not an acceptable reading of the constitution for other reasons. It's sort of like the whole situation of FDR being elected to President 4 times before dying a few months into his 4th term. Prior to that, Presidents had voluntarily shown some restraint in terms of seeking more offices and with medical technology advancing, it was increasingly likely to come up more frequently.
Hopefully the American voters wouldn't go along with something which so clearly violates the intention of a Constitutional Amendment, even if it is a valid "loophole".
The American Voters will be split on the issue according to which side it favored. The American Voters aren't really concerned about the Law and Amendment, they're only concerned about being able to say, "Yay, my side won" regardless if they voted for a suitable person for the job.
@@robertkarp2070 That's mostly because one party refuses to advance candidates that appeal to the voters. If we had actual real political parties, rather than a single uniparty that mostly just disagrees on a couple of social issues, that would probably change.
I'm going to disagree with your main scenario. The eligibility clause of the 12th Amendment contains the sentence "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." I, and I think most courts would interpret the 22nd to indicate that someone who had previously served more than one and a half terms would be "ineligible to the office." The Speaker of the House or President Pro Temporae routes would be more interesting. I'd assume that if a former two-term president were elected to one of those posts, there would be a lot of furious work by the Parliamentarians of the respective houses as to whether they would remain eligible in the line of succession, since I don't think that the Supreme Court would want to meet in emergency session to decide exactly who is president under such a crisis situation.
Section 1 of The Constitution of the United States. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I thought there was an exception for a third term, that it was not illegal just unprecedented. I think Harris will be important as a symbol for the police, but I prefer to see Clinton right some wrongs with Obama supporting through official channels like any citizen. I think PR needs their asses kicked, and it shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. As a rational person, I try to remain humble and be grateful when illusions are dispelled. And there should be some mechanism for that in the democracy. I believe they used to call it a Republic. But reelecting Obama would be momentum to drain the whole goddamn swamp at once. I'm under the impression the FBI is who decides if you're a real cop. DEA non-interdiction aside, we can't have independent contractors interfering with official intelligence channels, putting all their eggs in one basket because they think they're going to get away with it, failing, and taking us all down with it. Terrible things have happened. And the only moral justification for being involved would be to prevent them from happening again, not just vendetta. Legal precedent would prevent them from ever happening again.
What you are saying is that Harris can run for President with Obama as her VP. If elected, Harris can step down and Obama can still serve as President for a third term.
This reminds me of Asimov's "I Robot" where the 3 laws of robotics have to be manipulated in such a way to control a renegade robot. I suspect SCOTUS would possibly determine that a term limited President would be unqualified to serve as V.P. based on recursion of the 22nd amendment.
He's saying the Amendment does not say so, it is just assumed so. Now that he's opened that can of worms, someone will try and it will end up in front of the US Supreme Court to rule on it, The US Supreme Court will rule with majority partisan vote that benefits their side. Right now that's 5 to 3.
Evidently the recent rulings from the SCOTUS makes most if not All of that amendment irrelevant. What does the constitution say about the supreme Court and how to get rid of their ass ? Just asking tucky style 🤪 heeheehee ✌️
If this law had been in effect in 1900 TR could only run once in 1904. He would not have had the ability to run in 1912. Truman didn't want to run in 52 he could have as this would have been an Ex post facto law (after the fact) for him.
Gotta love these titles. Didn’t see nothing new here. My “Do Not Recommend This Channel” list getting longer! Does TH-cam have a limit? Don’t bother to answer(unless for someone else’s sake) My notifications are turned off.
You got something wrong. You said "if a VP takes over more than two years into a term." It should have been "if a VP takes over less than two years into a term and serves more than two years."
the 22nd amendment is called the FDR amendment. the rethugs ran it through to prevent an actual good democrat to run for a third term because FDR got through so many good programs and it threatened the rethug party. then ike came along and the rethugs kicked theyselves in the butt
Yes, and we are reaping the unintended ill effects of those programs. As for public works, yeah it was good thing, but after the infrastructure was build, people forgot they had to maintain it afterwards. Just saying.
Your interpretation was slightly off but I think it was more of a faux pax. You said "A vice president takes over more than two years into the term of a president", Should be less than two years in. Basically the VP needs to have served more than two years as POTUS to be limited to one elected presidency. I suppose its possible to interpret your words as meaning "taking over more than two of the years" but that would mean it was worded ambiguously and lawyers don't do that. LOL
So Kamala nominates Barrack as V.P. then steps aside once they "win" the election. He gets to have a fourth term? He's all but done with his third. I don't think this country can stand four more years of that guy.
For the good of America,instead of regulating firearms, lawyers should be regulated. Interpretation is what’s gotten this great nation in the peril that it’s in now. Let me help! 2nd amendment: blah blah blah blah…..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. Enough said.
I agree with the principle of the Second Amendment, but it is a grammatical disaster. The first four words of it are a valid noun, "A well-regulated militia". Can anyone tell me which verb that noun goes with, either as a subject or as a predicate?
the only firearms extant when the 2nd was added were muzzle loaders so there should be no restrictions on muzzle loaders. breech loaders should be able to have restrictions. originalist rhetoric cuts all ways
@@dom11949 By that logic, the first amendment would give no protection to online speech (the internet didn't exist when it was ratified) or to the religious practices of Mormons (Mormonism didn't exist yet when it was ratified). Originalism means that the words of the Constitution and it's amendments mean what they were understood to mean at the time that they were ratified, not that they only apply to things that existed when they were ratified.
@@eldorfthe_wise129 That is correct. So while it’s possible for a former President to be a vice president, should that president die or leave office, the vice president who served as president for two terms, cannot continue to serve as president again.
@@raristy1 True because of ineligibility. The ineligibility of already serving two terms as president or vice president would prevent them from being vice president or speaker of the House due to the presidential line of succession. They must be eligible to be president.
person is code word for a civil (a-i, too far left, to left, or left demo c rat, liberal, no or not military, persons); all so, person can be use to ID a civil (left female) since Person is for civil (left) male; citizen and Citizen are to ID military; “civil or military” is establish in Amendment XIV Section 3 (ratified 9 July 1868);
Only a Constitutional Amendment can change/modify/eliminate the Electoral College. Congress cannot. The President cannot. The SCOTUS cannot. An amendment requires 38 of the 50 state legislatures to ratify. Ain't gonna happen. Not ever. Like it or not, good - bad - or indifferent, the EC is here to stay.
Congress does not have the power to end the Electoral College. It is written in the constitution. To change the constitution you need a super majority in congress PLUS the approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. There are only 10 states with populations greater than Los Angeles County. If you end the Electoral College, then future campaigns will concentrate on those 10 states & ignore the other 40. So to change the Constitution, you will need a majority of those smaller states to vote themselves to be irrelevant. Good luck with that.
@@central_texas Actually, Congress can be by-passed if enough states call for a Constitutional convention on their own. However, this has never been done.
Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot. If you want a democracy go somewhere else. We have a constitutional republic, and it's always been that way, despite what the media has been trying to spin recently. Learn your history, and the reasoning for it.
Obviously didn't read Obama's book where he spells out his plan to remake America into a "third world service country" and bring up African countries to world power status.
Loopholes are to lawyers what diesel is to trucks!
I truly do learn new things every day, no matter how old i get😊 THANK YOU for that 😊education
Murphy's Law applies when someone wants what a law can be interpreted to forbid. They just interpret it differently.
At 1:10 you said it backwards. If they became president AFTER two years into the term 'He' COULD run TWICE.
Yes you are right as long as it is not a day over two years. Any time over two years then counts as a full term. Timing is everything in this case.
@@claiborneeastjr4129 There were all kinds of rumors that Biden who was so daft and addle brained would resign immediately after the mid terms in '22 giving Harris a chance to serve nearly 10 years.
“They”
Did you hear what you said. Someone who takes over more than 2 years into the term, can only be elected once.
What you read in the 22nd said if they serve in the position more than two years!
"... and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Exactly, they need to serve as president for more than two years in order to not be able to be elected as president twice.
The text of the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Cue the textualists!
@@jasonbrown3925 If you ask 5 attorneys to interperate a law you will get 7 opinions. But the old guys and gals in robes in DC have the last say. Always did and always will. That is why you write law carefully. The preamble to the law should be very specific and outline the aims of the law. However if an ex-president tries the succession approach via a “fake Presidential candidacy/resignation” all hell will break out. I can guarantee that.
Yep because they sure don’t always rule in favor of what the text literally says.
Neat. Fortunately no one has been daft enough to try it.
If a ticket contained a former two term President running as vice president, i believe, I hope, the average voter would disapprove of such technical shenanigans to vote against it.
Unless the 'average voter' wants a 3rd Trump term but would scream foul if Obama did it.
@@jasonbrown3925 j think the "average" voter has a sense of fair play and would condemn it whether a Republican or a Democrat tried it. Which is not to say I wouldn't much prefer Trump's son as president than Biden's son.
@@iasimov5960 Fair play went the way of bipartisanship.
@@iasimov5960that a nice thought, but I can’t agree. Specially in this election.
Actually, a former two-term president wouldn't be eligible to run as VP, because in order to be eligible to run as VP, a candidate must be eligible to rise to the office of president.
When someone does try to take advantage of that loophole, it would be challenged in the US Supreme Court. Since the US Supreme Court is always being stacked with partisan justices, it will probably be determined by which side has the majority and and the individual in question that is running. The US Supreme Court has ruled contrary to Amendments under the Bill of Rights before, namely the 4th Amendment so they would have no problem ruling on the 22nd Amendment according to which party it favors.
Absolutely!!!!!
An example was Lyndon B. Johnson could have served a second term.
Because he only served one year of Kennedy's term, but Teddy Roosevelt,
Harry Truman (Grandfathered in) couldn't, if the 22nd Amendment existed, then!
@@rongendron8705 If LBJ had run, won, and served the full second term he would have earned the title of the second longest serving President with about 9 years 2 months.
Please remove this before Barry or Big Mike can see it.
Carter, Bush, Trump, and Biden are eligible for another term.
Except G. H. W. Bush is dead so he can’t be sworn in.
So is Obama. As explained, assume he runs as VP. If his President nominee is elected. that nominee can swear in on Jan 20, then resign. Obama then becomes President for a third term.
@@rickemery9927 If someone is ineligible to run for President, and Obama is not since he's already served two full terms, then that someone is ineligible to serve as VP, since the Constitutional requirements are identical.
Why Not President Clinton? Wouldn't he qualify?
@@billysmith8261 No, he served his two terms.
I've actually had this discussion before. You'd have to find a candidate who was strong enough to be elected but who was willing to step down upon being elected. Or else, someone who is transparent about what was going to happen so the voters were making an informed decision. In either case, there would be all kinds of legal challenges and proposals for change.
Personally, I would never trust anyone who was so hungry for power that they would manipulate the system like this.
Honestly, I'm surprised Harris didn't have Biden 25th in late January 2023 for the same reason mentioned above. Maybe she just wasn't confident she could get elected twice more by the DNC?
It hadn't been much of a problem prior to the 22nd amendment, this was just enacted to prevent future issues. FDR won 4 terms even though he died only a couple months into his 4th term. In general, Presidents had typically not tried for a 3rd and most of them weren't even physically up to it even if they had wanted it.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade, right, everyone before Roosevelt (except Roosevelt) followed George Washington's lead and did not seek a third term. Teddy tried and failed, FDR succeeded.
@@sm5574, well, Teddy was pissed off at the other Republican candidate enough to split the Republican party. Unfortunately, that means we got Wilson instead. I kind of wonder what would have happened if the Bull Moose party would have survived and the Elephant party died off.... Either way, the Democrats would have done the same thing.
@@Charistoph, I'm not passing judgment.
I agree, the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim and the voters in that election are not likely to expect that to happen. The SCOTUS may even decide that that's not an acceptable reading of the constitution for other reasons. It's sort of like the whole situation of FDR being elected to President 4 times before dying a few months into his 4th term. Prior to that, Presidents had voluntarily shown some restraint in terms of seeking more offices and with medical technology advancing, it was increasingly likely to come up more frequently.
Hopefully the American voters wouldn't go along with something which so clearly violates the intention of a Constitutional Amendment, even if it is a valid "loophole".
The American Voters will be split on the issue according to which side it favored. The American Voters aren't really concerned about the Law and Amendment, they're only concerned about being able to say, "Yay, my side won" regardless if they voted for a suitable person for the job.
@@robertkarp2070 That's mostly because one party refuses to advance candidates that appeal to the voters. If we had actual real political parties, rather than a single uniparty that mostly just disagrees on a couple of social issues, that would probably change.
Is he laying ground for trump?
What the American voters think doesn't matter. Textualists on the SCOTUS will deal with them.
The people would have to REALLY want this former officer holder in the oval office again.
So this is how it starts.
I'm going to disagree with your main scenario. The eligibility clause of the 12th Amendment contains the sentence "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." I, and I think most courts would interpret the 22nd to indicate that someone who had previously served more than one and a half terms would be "ineligible to the office."
The Speaker of the House or President Pro Temporae routes would be more interesting. I'd assume that if a former two-term president were elected to one of those posts, there would be a lot of furious work by the Parliamentarians of the respective houses as to whether they would remain eligible in the line of succession, since I don't think that the Supreme Court would want to meet in emergency session to decide exactly who is president under such a crisis situation.
Um the SCOTUS would have gather and make ruling. It part of their job to ensure the balance of Powers and the Constitution are ensured.
Section 1 of The Constitution of the United States.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
You cannot be Vice President unless you are qualified to be President. If you've already been elected twice then you're out of the running.
That's not how it's wrote though
I thought there was an exception for a third term, that it was not illegal just unprecedented.
I think Harris will be important as a symbol for the police, but I prefer to see Clinton right some wrongs with Obama supporting through official channels like any citizen.
I think PR needs their asses kicked, and it shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. As a rational person, I try to remain humble and be grateful when illusions are dispelled. And there should be some mechanism for that in the democracy. I believe they used to call it a Republic.
But reelecting Obama would be momentum to drain the whole goddamn swamp at once.
I'm under the impression the FBI is who decides if you're a real cop. DEA non-interdiction aside, we can't have independent contractors interfering with official intelligence channels, putting all their eggs in one basket because they think they're going to get away with it, failing, and taking us all down with it.
Terrible things have happened. And the only moral justification for being involved would be to prevent them from happening again, not just vendetta. Legal precedent would prevent them from ever happening again.
2nd Admendment does not contain either firearm or gun. That means that the arms in bear arms could be defined as "pointy sticks".
What you are saying is that Harris can run for President with Obama as her VP. If elected, Harris can step down and Obama can still serve as President for a third term.
This reminds me of Asimov's "I Robot" where the 3 laws of robotics have to be manipulated in such a way to control a renegade robot.
I suspect SCOTUS would possibly determine that a term limited President would be unqualified to serve as V.P. based on recursion of the 22nd amendment.
It’s anything but clear the way you explain it.
I don't agree! A former, two-termed president is barred from serving in any office ,
that can succeed to the presidency!
He's saying the Amendment does not say so, it is just assumed so. Now that he's opened that can of worms, someone will try and it will end up in front of the US Supreme Court to rule on it, The US Supreme Court will rule with majority partisan vote that benefits their side. Right now that's 5 to 3.
"6 to 3" is what I meant to say.
Evidently the recent rulings from the SCOTUS makes most if not All of that amendment irrelevant. What does the constitution say about the supreme Court and how to get rid of their ass ? Just asking tucky style 🤪 heeheehee ✌️
If this law had been in effect in 1900 TR could only run once in 1904. He would not have had the ability to run in 1912. Truman didn't want to run in 52 he could have as this would have been an Ex post facto law (after the fact) for him.
Gotta love these titles. Didn’t see nothing new here.
My “Do Not Recommend This Channel” list getting longer! Does TH-cam have a limit?
Don’t bother to answer(unless for someone else’s sake)
My notifications are turned off.
So, Obama could be the dems VP pick, then have Kamala step aside.
That's right
You got something wrong. You said "if a VP takes over more than two years into a term." It should have been "if a VP takes over less than two years into a term and serves more than two years."
My head is spinning!
By “in the future” might you be implying “by April 2025?”
I've been saying this for years! You just need to find shills to be ahead of you in line who then resign.
That “shill” has to be popular enough to win the presidency in the first place. Not so easy.
Like what is happening with Obama?
1 day more than 6 and 1 day less than 10 years kind of the extremes possible...
You’re trying to pick gnat shit outta pepper….
So are we suggesting Obama for VP
why is it written Spanish?
the 22nd amendment is called the FDR amendment. the rethugs ran it through to prevent an actual good democrat to run for a third term because FDR got through so many good programs and it threatened the rethug party. then ike came along and the rethugs kicked theyselves in the butt
Yeah, and and the public works projects ended the depression. 😂
Even Google tells you that is not true. 😂
Yes, and we are reaping the unintended ill effects of those programs. As for public works, yeah it was good thing, but after the infrastructure was build, people forgot they had to maintain it afterwards. Just saying.
Lol...That is so interesting.
Your interpretation was slightly off but I think it was more of a faux pax.
You said "A vice president takes over more than two years into the term of a president",
Should be less than two years in. Basically the VP needs to have served more than two years as POTUS to be limited to one elected presidency.
I suppose its possible to interpret your words as meaning "taking over more than two of the years" but that would mean it was worded ambiguously and lawyers don't do that. LOL
Donald's loophole???
Obama’s loophole?
@@seanm3226 Gee, I didn't know that Obama tried to run a third time.
So Kamala nominates Barrack as V.P. then steps aside once they "win" the election. He gets to have a fourth term? He's all but done with his third. I don't think this country can stand four more years of that guy.
For the good of America,instead of regulating firearms, lawyers should be regulated. Interpretation is what’s gotten this great nation in the peril that it’s in now. Let me help! 2nd amendment: blah blah blah blah…..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. Enough said.
*" Enough said "* Maybe, maybe not. So...even the criminally insane? So...even nuclear weapons?
I agree with the principle of the Second Amendment, but it is a grammatical disaster. The first four words of it are a valid noun, "A well-regulated militia". Can anyone tell me which verb that noun goes with, either as a subject or as a predicate?
the only firearms extant when the 2nd was added were muzzle loaders so there should be no restrictions on muzzle loaders. breech loaders should be able to have restrictions. originalist rhetoric cuts all ways
@@dom11949 By that logic, the first amendment would give no protection to online speech (the internet didn't exist when it was ratified) or to the religious practices of Mormons (Mormonism didn't exist yet when it was ratified).
Originalism means that the words of the Constitution and it's amendments mean what they were understood to mean at the time that they were ratified, not that they only apply to things that existed when they were ratified.
weapons? You are truly unedcable. There is a term for that, it just escapes me right now.😂
Read what Thomas Jefferson said about that.
ya NO s--t sherlock
So what you are saying is that Kamala Harris could pick Obama as her vice president.
VICE president is not a PRESIDENT, therefore, well, it’s possible to be a VICE president after being the President.
@@raristy1 And if the President dies, that vice-president is not eligible for that office. That was the whole point of the 22nd Amendment.
@@eldorfthe_wise129 That is correct.
So while it’s possible for a former President to be a vice president, should that president die or leave office, the vice president who served as president for two terms, cannot continue to serve as president again.
@@raristy1 True because of ineligibility. The ineligibility of already serving two terms as president or vice president would prevent them from being vice president or speaker of the House due to the presidential line of succession. They must be eligible to be president.
Just pointing out the right to bare arms is the 2nd Amendment not the 22nd
I think 'consecutive terms is in there, somewhere.
No, it does not!
person is code word for a civil (a-i, too far left, to left, or left demo c rat, liberal, no or not military, persons); all so, person can be use to ID a civil (left female) since Person is for civil (left) male;
citizen and Citizen are to ID military;
“civil or military” is establish in Amendment XIV Section 3 (ratified 9 July 1868);
Gop trickery and bs
You can’t serve if you are not elected. Stop with the word games.
Congress must end the electoral college
Only a Constitutional Amendment can change/modify/eliminate the Electoral College. Congress cannot. The President cannot. The SCOTUS cannot. An amendment requires 38 of the 50 state legislatures to ratify. Ain't gonna happen. Not ever. Like it or not, good - bad - or indifferent, the EC is here to stay.
Congress does not have the power to end the Electoral College. It is written in the constitution. To change the constitution you need a super majority in congress PLUS the approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. There are only 10 states with populations greater than Los Angeles County. If you end the Electoral College, then future campaigns will concentrate on those 10 states & ignore the other 40. So to change the Constitution, you will need a majority of those smaller states to vote themselves to be irrelevant. Good luck with that.
@@central_texas Actually, Congress can be by-passed if enough states call for a Constitutional convention on their own. However, this has never been done.
No
Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot. If you want a democracy go somewhere else. We have a constitutional republic, and it's always been that way, despite what the media has been trying to spin recently. Learn your history, and the reasoning for it.
Barack Obama for VP!
Lol good one
Obama for prison!
Obviously didn't read Obama's book where he spells out his plan to remake America into a "third world service country" and bring up African countries to world power status.
Heck No.
Well, yeah, though not explicitly stated in the video, this IS the rather obvious implication of this legal opinion... 🤔