[mlitefan]

It’s still a violation of the 12th amendment and is a non-starter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

100% correct. This is nothing more than a distraction.

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/

[Sequoyah101]

At the time of the Twelfth Amendment there was only Article II and the only qualification for President was in Article II. It could be argued that, since the Twenty-second Amendment was silent on qualification that it only limited the number of times a person could be Elected as President, nothing was said about VP elections at all.

I have not seen any legal discussion on the matters but the USSC has interpreted the law and the Constitution as to intent as well as statements.

I am not saying I favor any of this but I do fear it since I see a loophole. In the past we just assumed that people would be reasonable and see the intent and follow it. No such discipline is evident in the left these days. Roberts noted in his ruling on Presidential Immunity that the question of immunity hadn't even come up in the past, neither has this, nobody has ever attempted such a bold subterfuge. It is something that once would have been considered dishonorable and out of bounds.

Furthermore, granting presidents immunity from prosecution for their official acts clearly falls within the Supreme Court’s precedents and does not constitute a reversal from “long-established legal principles.” As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, the U.S. “has never before needed an answer” to the question of when a former president may “be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency.”

The aberration is the prosecution, not the decision that some official acts are immune from it.