• Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Would he? Honest question I’m not sure how at would work if Trump was imprisoned or died before taking office.

      • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-20/

        In Section 3:

        If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.

        Wouldn’t surprise me if the GOP martyred Trump, honestly. They can’t have him abdicate or remove him and have MAGA support, but if they could find a way to martyr him they would have their messiah and Thiel’s boy in place. The smart play would be to have him serve more than half of his term though, so Vance could have a shot at 10 years in the White House.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I figure they’ll wait until Jan 21, 2027 at which point Trump’s death/removal wouldn’t prevent Vance from serving an additional two full terms. Before than and it counts towards the two term limit for Vance.

        • mm_maybe@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I would go so far as to say that this has always ben the plan, at least this time around. I find it highly suspicious that Trump has been the target of assassination attempts by republicans twice (plus a foreign attempt on his life) already. We’re being prepared to accept this as expected when it finally happens, and it has to happen in order to give Vance the pretext to implement martial law and usher in the high-tech Handmaid’s Tale scenario his patrons want. Trump is their useful idiot; but useful only because he is populist and charismatic enough to get them in power via ordinary electoral process. Once they suspend that process entirely they no longer need him and in fact he becomes a liability; offing him kills two birds with one stone.

        • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          We (probably) don’t have a president-elect yet, only a presumptive one. The EC votes have been neither cast nor counted. The most likely point in time at which a candidate becomes president-elect is when the majority of the EC votes have been cast for that candidate, regardless of the counting and certification. Even though we use the term loosely for the assumed winner, the EC adds a layer of weirdness to the legal definition.

            • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              What I’m saying is not about faithless electors. I never mentioned them, so I’m not completely sure what took you down that road.

              There is a legal definition of the term “president-elect” that hasn’t entirely been sorted out. The most widely accepted view is that the candidate who has the majority of EC votes cast for them, regardless of whether those votes have been counted or certified, is legally the president-elect. The nuance to this is that any reference to the president-elect before EC votes have been cast is using the common term, not the legal one.

              The distinction is mostly inconsequential, one major exception being the 20th amendment, which you cited previously. That particular usage is specifically the legal definition, which very likely has not been satisfied until the EC casts their votes. The outcome is that, if those who are meant to uphold the law have any interest in doing so, the 20th amendment does not yet apply, and the legal roles of president-elect and vice president-elect are currently vacant.