Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
you cant say Trump is not a hell of a salesman, calling taxing imports a Liberation is a hell of a line,
almost as good as "inflation reduction act" and :build back better"
I LOL’d at that last line.
I want to believe that Trump understands the nature of tariffs and how they can impact long-term decision making. We’re close enough to the beginning that plans already underway won’t be radically impacted. But continued escalation won’t equalize the tariff imbalance; it will serve to disrupt global economies and result in a consumer-hammering inflationary period. Pull up, fer crissakes!
There is no such requirement for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is in the line of succession behind the Vice-President. If the President and Vice-President are incapacitated or resign, the Speaker of the House becomes President.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected by the majority party in the House of Representatives, and does not need to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Where in our constitutional law did you read that? I've seen others post that and even fake news try to make that argument.
What I was told... Right now if that happened and lets say our speaker of the house Mike Johnson had already served 2 presidential terms. If JD and Trump stepped down the position of President would go to Grassley because Johnson would not be eligible because he severed 2 terms. They just skip speaker and move to The president pro tempore of the United States Senate. There's also a way to legally invoke special elections too. Unless the supreme court does something in the future - that's the way it stands from my understanding.
To put it in simple terms. A President cannot be sworn in more than twice. It's illegal. Even if they are speaker ect... Unless the supreme court changes that, that is how it is.
But to be president and have presidential power - he would have to be sworn in again. Even if he held speaker position - he gets no Presidential power without an oath to the office. And legally that cant happen the way the law is.
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 specifies the line of succession...
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is chosen by the House of Representatives, there is no requirement in the Constitution for the Speaker to be a member of the House of Representatives.
It doesn't matter if the Speaker of the House has served 2 terms or 1 minute.
Your right I stand corrected.
Washington does. Oregon does not.
I've read that act. That doesn't say anything about it over riding the 22-A law. Which limits term limits.
But what you are not understanding is that would be the case only if the Speaker was eligible. Trump wouldn't be because the 22-A stops that.
If they are ineligible it skips over them.
Since they ratified the 22A back in 1951 many have tried to repeal it with no success. It's very firm law.
And the speaker loophole isn't an actual loophole. Because the 22A is in place to stop it.
If he were to let's say be sworn in again as POTUS.. Taking an oath to uphold the constitution while breaking his oath LOL... I just don't see that happening.
Remember...
In his mind.
Just sayin.
No doubt some here are eat up with this.
But there's no frikkin way he can get a 3rd term as president of the United states of America.
Actually, the 22nd doesn’t say anything about passing over someone who has already been President for 2 terms. The argument, which I hope wouldn’t prevail no matter the party, is that the exact wording of the 22nd is that no one will be ‘elected’ after serving 2 terms (technically 1 day over 1.5 terms, I suppose).
I think that nearly all rational and objective thinking is that the intent was to keep anyone from serving more than 2 terms, but it doesn’t actually say that.
The only way would be for the courts to allow it. Which I don't see that happening. Unless something big happens in regards to that 2020 election (fraud interference - proven in court). He has no legal foundation at all for a 3rd term.
Succession is not election!
It clearly says no ore than 2 terms ( common sense tells me that would cover election or even holding office by any other means - even a coup if done by the people). What else does it need to say?
I always see these supposedly smart lawyers saying it isn't clear. I've read articles where lawyers have tried to make shit up and talk about that there's other presidents that could've done this or done under that succession act.. But at the end of the day it's all bullshit propaganda for clicks.
Read where it says Held office.
It says that they can’t be elected more than 2 terms. It would be much better and more definitive if it said that no one can serve more than 2 terms. Unfortunately it doesn’t, so my hope (and hopefully the same for most people) is that this ‘loophole’ isn’t tried or it could end up in a true constitutional crisis.
You and I agree that the intent was likely to keep someone from serving more than 2 terms, but unfortunately the language of the 22nd just isn’t that cut and dry.
Read were is says elected to the office, succession to the office is not elected to the office!
To me it';s clear. That also would mean hold office. Does anyone honestly think think they put the 22-A in place just for elections and not to stop tyranny/rule? Reasoning can speak volumes - if you look at what the law accomplishes or stops.
Law is always gonna be contested - I get that. And when it comes to this stuff no matter what it is even the 2A "it's not clear" is always a reasoning to argue it.
Pit Row
The intent may be clear, but it's the wording that has legal standing.
I understand that. However I already mentioned this in my last post.
On a side note you ready for the SX this weekend? Might be a mudder.
After last weeks results, I have little confidence.
Our race is close, you are only 8 points behind me!
I get what you mean.
As far as legal standing. That's not always the case when you look at our other amendments - the way they've butchered them,through interpretation.
They certainly didn't understand what "shall not be infringed" meant. When they made us start paying taxes on machine guns and other sorts of firearms they wanted to discourage us from owning and even banned them in some states.
They butchered the law. The law actually was written for militias and also the people. With even weapon evolution in mind. But try telling that to someone and they will argue it.
Anyway, I want to find some good legit reads on this topic (22-A and succession ect..) and study it a bit a more. I'm also curious on some of the repeal arguments too.
Well , maybe this weekend you will move up some more. Get a good big team of mud riders.
It depends on your perspective.
They have had a VAT in Europe for some time......it is close to the same thing.
VAT is not a tariff, it is a sales tax which is applied to local and imported goods
VAT is the same as a state sales tax.
The constitution like many laws, should be rewritten to remove ambiguity, but laws are written by politicians, they will protect their own interests.
"Imported goods" why I said close.
I agree. Thanks for the chat on the topic. It's gotten me more interested in it.
This is your chance to pass me!
Correct VAT seems like quasi hybrid Tariff-tax.
I'm on diesel forum and the European members are always asking for American guys to help them with parts shipments as the VAT is crushing them so to those who say it's the same as regular sales tax I beg to differ.
Post a reply to: Third Term Trumper