The public sentiment is predominantly critical of the Supreme Court's directive, perceived as judicial overreach and an intrusion into the executive's domain, undermining the separation of powers and democratic principles. While many support Vice President Dhankhar's stance, viewing it as a defense of constitutional governance, there is also recognition of the importance of the judiciary in maintaining checks and balances, causing a polarity in opinions. Frustration is also expressed over judicial inefficiencies like case backlogs.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar

Supreme Court of India

President of India

Indian Parliament


Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:  

1.  start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),

2.  attempt to answer the question, and   

3.  be unbiased

Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:

http://redd.it/b1hct4/

Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Answer: So when Trump took office on January 20th, one of the first executive orders he made was the "Declaring A National Emergency At The Southern Border of the United States", which he declared:

"A national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States...I hereby declare that this national emergency requires use of the Armed Forces..."

Essentially, in the order, he directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a Joint Report to the President about whether he should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 within 90 days.

Typically, the military cannot be used against US citizens ,even acting as police, due to the Posse Comitatus act of 1878. 

The insurrection act of 1807, however, gives the president emergency powers to use the military against citizens during times of civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion.

January 20 2025 + 90 days = April 20, 2025

Hands0L0

Answer: on his first day in office he signed an Executive Order requiring the Departments of Defense and  Homeland Security to report to him 90 days later as to whether he could invoke the Insurrection Act. As he has replaced the heads of both departments with followers, the presumption is they will answer “Yes,” and he will do so. April 20 is the 90th day after the order was signed, so he will likely invoke the Act on that day. That it is also Hitler’s birthday and that Hitler’s dictatorship began with the Enabling Act is merely a cosmic joke.

roehnin

Question: will I still have to go to work if this happens?

Dollar_Bills

Answer:

Hard to ever genuinely predict what he'll do but this is based on [his own actions and words.](https://www.newsweek.com/insurrection-act-explained-trump-admin-deciding-whether-invoke-1807-law-2041626)

He's got his people working on a report to tell him whether he should declare martial law over the border, and that date is the deadline.

carrie_m730

Answer: one of Trump's executive orders back in January included giving 90 days for the secretary of Defense to compile a report of what measures are needed to secure the border, **including declaring illegal migration an invasion, as in the same thing that happens when a foreign army is entering your country**.


The deadline for that report is April 20th (coincidentally, because thats 90 days after the 1st day Trump could sign EOs) and the theory is that since the government is chockful of loyalists, the report will say exactly what Trump wants: illegal immigration is a big crisis and thus Trump can do whatever he wants to deal with it, including declaring a national crisis and mobilizing the army.

firebolt_wt

Answer: On Jan 20 he asked the department of defence if they think it's worth invoking the Insurrection Act because of what is going on at the border (which is just an excuse). They have 90 days to reply.

Jan 20 + 90 days = Apr 20. 

If you want to dig deeper, this is all part of Yarvin's playbook to dismantle America's democracy and slowly but surely build a network of city states ran like businesses (with little regards for their residents).

[This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no) does a really good job at explaining and connecting the dots. 

Basically Trump is following almost step by step the guide from Yarvin (to implement the Butterfly Revolution). Just look how far along we are already:

**Step 1: Campaign on autocracy**

What it is: Frame the autocracy as getting rid of an inefficient and unworkable system

What was done:

Creation of Department Of Government Efficiency: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qwn8p0l0o
US President-elect Donald Trump has picked Elon Musk for a role in government cost-cutting, as part of his drive to "dismantle" bureaucracy when he returns to the White House next year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74mmj7p0keo

Many worry he will try to rule as an autocrat and undermine American democracy. His predecessor, Joe Biden, pointedly used his final Oval Office address to warn of a dangerous oligarchy of unaccountable billionaires forming around Trump that threatens the basic rights and freedoms of Americans.

**Step 2: Purge the bureaucracy**

What it is: RAGE - Retire All Government Employees - Then replace with a smaller number of loyalists

What was done: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced961egp65o

Freeze on federal hiring
Schedule F to reclassify federal employees to make them easier to fire https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-executive-order-schedule-f


Federal employees returning to the office (to encourage more of them to leave)


Offering incentives for federal workers to resign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvqe3le3z4o


Project 2025 Presidential Personnel Database is implemented to have an easy list of loyalists to pick from if you need to replace other officials (it is live and you can add your application now) https://www.project2025.org/personnel/


Presidential Administration Academy: a platform to educate the potential candidates to work for the admnistration to ensure proper alignment: https://www.project2025.org/training/presidential-administration-academy/


Fired justice department officials that were investigating him https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjw461nelzdt



**Step 3: Ignore the courts**

What it is: the president should declare a state of emergency so the supreme court rulings would become merely advisory with no need to follow it/enforce it. The goal is to give more immunity to the president to solidify his autocracy

What was done:

Supreme court ruling that Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jul/01/supreme-court-decision-trump-immunity-ruling


Trump declared a national border emergency in immigration crackdown https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-immigration-emergency-executive-order

Worth noting from the executive order above: 

&gt;(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.


This could mean  implementing Marshall Law on April 20, or the Insurrection Act so you can deploy the military against citizens if needed.


**Step 4: Co-opt Congress**

What it is: The president should handpick candidates for every single seat based only on personal loyalty to him

What was done:

Picked Republicans as new members of the Congress, at least temporarily (but they don't say for how long), tipping over the power in his favour in the US House https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-turns-congress-cabinet-picks-whittling-away-slim-margins-2024-11-13/



**Step 5: Centralise police + powers**

What it is: leveraging the new state of emergency/immunity, the president should take direct control over all law enforcement agencies, federalise the national guard and effectively create a new national police force that absorbs local bodies

What was done: 

[Trump fired several military official - CQ Brown (Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff), Adm Lisa Franchetti (Chief of Naval Operations) and Gen Jim Slide (Vice Chief of Staff of Air Force)](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyr2xvn4dpo)

 The Joint Chiefs of Staff is a group of senior military leaders that advises the President, Defense Secretary, Homeland Security Council, and the National Security Council on military matters. The chair is the nation's highest-ranking military officer and normally serves a term of four years, staggered to provide stability between presidential administrations.

Brown is being replaced by Dan Caine, a retired lieutenant general who is so unfit that his nomination legally requires a “national interest” waiver from the White House. He is also an investor in a cryptocurrency venture capital firm

[The Senate put Kash Patel as the Director of the FBI](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rqpp52j5vo) - a far-right Qanon conspiracy theorist. 

[Trump appointed a right-wing Podcaster as deputy FBI Director](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwd2qrn1e2o)

It is worth noting that he did already gather the national guard back in 2020 for the George Floyd protest, threatening to use the Insurrection Act https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52893540


**Step 6: Shut down elite media and academic institutions**

What it is: To have true power you need to control the media and academia. True power is held by "the cathedral", it is the elite media and academic institutions that sets the bounds of acceptable politic discourse and distorts reality to conform more to your beliefs, Ministry of Truth style.

What was done:

Pause to all federal grants, loans and other assistance, including help for cancer research. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77rdy6gzy5o


The freeze impacts the NIH so it basically halts all research in the US https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-hits-nih-devastating-freezes-meetings-travel-communications-and-hiring


He pledged to axe the Department of Education: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno


and fired 50% of the DoE workforce in March: https://abcnews.go.com/US/department-education-faces-50-layoffs-after-closure-notice/story?id=119690524

before finally dismantling it on March 20 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07zpmzxln1o


He said in his campaign (not actioned so far) he would "reclaim" universities to give them a massive overhaul to fire 'radical left accreditors' https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/18/trump-education-policies


They are considering buying TikTok https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgm81x2d3ko

It is now the White House that directly chooses which journalists should be in the press pool: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/26/white-house-journalists-trump

It used to be an independent body making sure to rotate who is in the pool to follow the president and report on what is happening. They are the reporters closest to Trump during interviews and they are the ones who can him questions and hold him accountable. So what happens now that he's the one handpicking them?

[They are closing down Voice Of America](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4l109r3o) ( launched in 1942 with a mandate to combat Nazi and Japanese propaganda)

**Step 7: Turn out your people**

What it is: Get your people to go out on the street and loudly proclaim their support any time anyone would try to stop you in any way.

What was done: Nothing recent, but we all remember Jan 6 so we know he has enough influence to pull something like this.

Another useful link: [Project 2025 tracker](https://www.project2025.observer)

--------

I know it all looks grim.

Don't lose hope, do your part, even the tiniest part: spread the word. Educate those you can, make sure more people know about this.

And remember: Fascism will ALWAYS lose. Their core values revolve around targeting a specific group and vilifying them and pinning all your problems on them. 


Inevitably, after the first target is out of the picture yet the problems remain, you will need a new target. Slowly but surely, the party will turn against their own and implode.

Acting early can make a difference in the amount of suffering while they are in power, but they will always be temporary.


[Never forget that.](https://dansinker.com/posts/2025-02-23-dale/) 

Don't wait until it gets worse. It takes a few minutes to copy paste my message for instance. It's ok if you don't have the time to dig deeper, people like me did the digging already and are compiling it in a digestible format. Spread it.

It's just as useful. Time spent digging and compiling is time we cannot use to spread the message efficiently. We need you.

QueenAlucia

wolflikme

SCOTUS- The pardon is a check on the judiciary and the courts have no constitutional authority to overrule a pardon.

POTUS- I've seen answers to this that go between yes no and maybe. But Grant rescinded two pardons that Andrew Johnson had given. Andrew Johnson issued the two pardons, and “sent” them. The two pardons apparently were passed through the chain of command, but when they reached the desk of the warden of the actual prison where both men were being held, the warden apparently “allowed them to sit on his desk.” The "pardoned" individuals sued in court but the court ruled in Grant's favor saying that the President can, "arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison." FYI Grant later granted the pardons.

IANAL but if I had a client and they were pardoned by the President, and the next President reversed his pardon I would argue first that no "person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" under the Eighth Amendment, and that perhaps the res judicata doctrine would apply since a pardon ends imprisonment.

[deleted]

No, a presidential pardon (if accepted) can not be undone or reversed by a later president.

BUT, and this is the reason I added "if accepted," presidential pardons have two important limits on them: 

1. They apply to federal laws only, state crimes can only be pardoned by governors if the state allows it.
2. By accepting a pardon you are admitting you did the action that violated the federal law whose violation you are being pardoned of. 

Pardons have been rejected by some people because of that second clause, those who maintain their innocence or simply don't want to admit their guilt. Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio for example has meant the civil suits against him got a lot harder for him to defend against in court because he is incapable now of denying his actions because he accepted the pardon.

The US does have constitutional protections against double jeopardy, that once you have been pardoned of a federal statute for specific action X you can not be charged with violating the same federal statue for specific action X. That doesn't mean if you do a *new repeat* of specific action X you are protected, only that the same action can put you in legal jeopardy twice.

HOWEVER, while a prohibition against double jeopardy exists there *is* also a doctrine of what's called dual sovereignty. 

Essentially "states rights" but in legal form. If specific action X that you were pardoned for is both a federal and state crime, being pardoned for the federal crime means you are essentially pleading guilty to the state crime. So if someone were pardoned from say a federal law regarding money laundering, but that crime happened in the state of New York who also have laws against money laundering, by accepting the pardon for the federal charges you have lost your ability to say you never laundered money. Pardons are meant to be clemency for those who were treated harshly and have reformed, misuse of the pardon power as it has been used the last few years was quite literally one of the examples of an impeachable offence Hamilton wrote about in the federalist papers. 

Now, a big astrix (besides the fact that INAL) is that this has never really been tested in court. No one who has accepted a presidential pardon has then been tried in state court for the crime they were pardoned of at a federal level. Dual sovereignty has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 2018, but it still remains untested what happens when the unstoppable force of constitutional protections against double jeopardy and the pardon power meet the immovable object of the constitutional principle of dual sovereignty.

Like so many things in common law, if there is no case history it is hard to say with certainty what would happen.

auandi

It has never been adjudicated, but I would argue that the Supreme Court could find that the impeachment limitation on the pardon power allows for pardons to be ruled invalid. This limitation seems to imply that any offense (or related offense) that would be grounds for impeachment is unpardonable. Otherwise you could have a situation where a President robs the treasury, pardons himself (or has his VP pardon him after resigning), and is criminally absolved except for his likely removal from office. So, to answer your question with this understanding, any pardon issued to absolve or cover up an abuse of power is, or should be, unpardonable.

Like everything, it depends on how SCOTUS rules.  The odds of SCOTUS overturning a pardon are extremely low.  I don't know if there's ever been a case where they ruled on whether a pardon purchased with a bribe is still valid, though I do expect that would stand.  Whether they'll uphold a self-pardon will be a novel question of law that could go either way.

gsfgf

No, a pardon cannot be revoked or overruled.  The pardon power in the constitution is absolute and provides for no review by any other branch of government or subsequent president.

Welcome to /r/ask_politics.  Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics.  Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below.

* Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner
* Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring"
* Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies)
* Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting.  **If asked, you must provide sources.**
* Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with.  **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**.
* Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules.

If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

One thing to consider is while you can't be tried for the same crime again, criminals don't tend to commit a single crime once and nothing else, so while that specific crime is off the table for prosecutors, there could easily be tangential crimes that would be easy to prosecute as they had already been convicted of a crime that was related to it.

Fidodo

No one dealt with the one open question: can the president pardon himself? That could get to court and the court would have to respond.

matts2

I'm going to lean towards no it can't. If it could, then why hasn't Ford's pardon of Nixon been overruled? Carter was president after Ford and could have easily overturned Ford's pardon if it was true. And after Carter there have been six more presidents. None of them have done anything about it.

cracksilog

In the original text of the Constitution, the presidential candidate with the second-most votes would become Vice President, so in practice the two would virtually always be of separate parties.

It only took four election cycles to determine that this system was untenable (imagine if Donald Trump was Joe Biden's VP) so in 1804 the 12th Amendment was ratified, which changed it so that the president and VP are elected on separate ballots. However in the mid-19th century it became the norm for a presidential and vice presidential candidate to run together as "running mates" so in practice they would always both receive the same number of votes. Additionally, although the electoral college technically selects them separately, on the actual state ballots voters only cast one vote for a presidential-VP pair (I can't determine if there are any states that don't do it this way).

So strictly speaking it is possible for the president and VP to be of different parties, but only if the president picks someone of the other party to be their running mate. This has happened; Republican Abraham Lincoln picked Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in a bid to foster national unity, although the fact that Johnson became president after Lincoln was murdered pretty much put an end to the practice, and no successful presidential candidate has chosen a running mate of the opposite party since. Republican John McCain reportedly considered Democrat Joe Lieberman to be his running mate in 2008, but he ultimately chose Sarah Palin and the rest is history.

StupidLemonEater

There's no rule against it. We've had that several times in the early years of our democracy. It worked alright.

In modern times though it's *extremely* unlikely due to all the informal rules the parties have set up over the years. It's so unlikely that it would make the news if someone even seriously tried.

But at the end of the day, there's still no rule against it, so someone could try any time they want.

AfraidSoup2467

Absolutely. Parties are no-where mentioned in the Constitution. 

Originally the runner up was made VP, however this naturally lead to contention between the two offices.

JamesStrangsGhost

&gt; How do these two's elections works?

It's only one election.  The President picks his VP.  Originally the VP was the presidential candidate who came in second place, but they discovered pretty quickly that having people with different beliefs as the top two people in the country didn't lead to a good working relationship.

As for can they be two different parties?  Sure, there's nothing preventing that.  However, it's extremely unlikely for a presidential candidate to pick a VP from another party.

jurassicbond

There's one thing that I think I've seen people skip over. In the event of a tie in the electoral college the house of representatives will pick the president while the Senate will choose the vice president. If the two were controlled by different parties it would be likely that such a situation were to occur.

TubaJesus

parties are not a codified part of the government.  There is no official rule for or against it.  Though in practice it would not happen any longer.

machagogo

Everyone saying yes is talking purely theoretically. The 12th Amendment makes it functionality impossible if there is more than one viable party. It has happened once since then, when Abraham Lincoln ran in a national unity ticket with a Democrat for VP in the middle of the Civil War (the Dems were deeply divided over support for the war and not at all a nationally viable party at the time). After the war ended it took all of five days for a Democratic partisan to shoot him in the head and get their guy in office instead. I wouldn't expect to see it again for that very good reason

1) Yes, it is possible for someone to chose a VP from an opposing party, although it’s unlikely

2) Since the president is decided with the electoral college, which has 538 votes, it’s possible for there to be a tie with 269 votes for each candidate. In that case the House of Representatives votes on the President and the Senate votes on a Vice President, so although it hasn’t happened yet it’s possible for congress to chose 2 opposing candidates.

SharpHD7

They can, but it’s highly unlikely. In the 1800s, the Vice President was just the runner up (so it was likely that they could be from different parties) , but now the president chooses the Vice President. And if I was the President, I would want someone I like to be my Vice President and 9/10 were going to be on the same party so our ideals can align.

Hot_Dog_Cobbler

Theoretically, yes. But president and vice president run on a combined ticket (you vote for the pair), so the presidential nominee would need to pick a candidate of the opposite party. Given how polarized the parties are these days, I can't imagine it happening as it's not likely to sway voters over and could also chase others away to 3rd parties.

blipsman

In theory, yes.  In practice, no.

The President and Vice President run together, so you're voting for the pair of them.

Back in the day, the Vice President was whoever came in second in the election, but as political parties became a thing, they realized that was kind of stupid, so they fixed it with the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Now someone running for President could, theoretically, name a running mate from a different party, but that would probably cost him a lot of votes, so it's unlikely he'd win.

There is one even more unlikely way it could happen.  If no candidate gets a majority of votes in the Electoral College, then the House of Representatives chooses the President from among the top three candidates for President, and the Senate chooses the Vice President from among the top two candidates for Vice President.  The House and Senate could choose candidates from different parties.

Wadsworth_McStumpy

Yes the VP can come from a different party

People keep pointing out Lincoln and Jackson but Bill Weld and Gary Johnson were running mates in '16 and '20 despite being members of different parties.  They didn't win but they were still members of different parties.

Yes but unlikely in the modern day since Presidents and Vice Presidents de facto run as one ticket. The one exception is if neither candidate can achieve 270 electoral votes then the House of Representatives will choose the President* and the Senate will choose the Vice President. So under this situation their is a chance that a President and Vice President of differing parties could be a reality.

*Each congressional delegation so for example if a state has 8 representatives 5 Democrats 2 Republicans and 1 Libertarian then that will count as 1 Democrat vote for the delegation. The person with the most delegation (not sure if this is the correct term but it is the correct concept from my understanding) wins the Presidency.

Mac-Tyson

Technically, yes, and it happened back when the runner up got the vice slot. 

Practically, our current system makes it EXTREMELY unlikely.  Parties may not be laid out in the constitution but the voting procedures and culture that are built around them make it very unlikely (and probably ill advised) to put anothet party on your ticket in the vice slot. 


FWIW it's not uncommon for the vice nominee to be from a different faction within the party. An extreme candidate may get a moderate vice nominee to soften that image and try to draw in more centrist voters and vice versa. Similarly the vice nominee might be someone with a career focus on one or two issues important to the base but lacking in the POTUS candidates platform, like education or environmental concerns.

azuth89

Legally, yes. But in most cases it would probably be unpopular with their party’s voters. Especially in modern times with two main parties that are always at each other’s throats lol.

barbaramillicent

Of course but it probably won't happen soon.

radpandaparty

Yes. Abraham Lincoln was Republican and had a Democrat, Andrew Johnson as VP.

In 16 I thought that Hillary needed a moderate Republican as her VP. I've often wondered how it would have played out if she had Kasich as her VP.

7thAndGreenhill

They can, but it hasn't happened for years, if ever.  The presidential candidates always choose someone from their party

Semi-Madman

Yes. It's just the modern ticket system makes it pretty hard to happen. These days people vote for a ticket rather than the 2 independently so it'd only happen if there was some nonsense going on.

It actually has happened twice. 

* John Adams was a Federalist and his VP was Thomas Jefferson who was a Democratic Republican

* Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and his second VP was Andrew Johnson who was a Democrat

It's worth noting that the first case was under a different voting system and the second case was done on purpose as a call for unity after our civil war.

Stumpy3196

QuietObserver75

Technically, yes. For a few years that was the case as the Vice President was simply the person who came in second in votes, regardless of party affiliation. There is no law preventing it. If the President or Vice President die in office, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives moves up to Vice President regardless of their party affiliation.

Stayed-Too-Long

Yup and it’s happened before back in 1864. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, chose Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, as his running mate in that election.

In recent history, John McCain, a Republican, almost selected Joe Lieberman, a Democratic-affiliated Independent, to be his running mate. He ultimately regretted not going with his gut.

simberry2

There's no rule against it.  Lincoln was a Republican and Andrew Johnson was a Constitutional Unionist, but I don't know of any time we've had a POTUS and VP from different parties since then.  Note: Lincoln and Johnson were elected ***after*** we switched to having the electoral college cast separate ballots for POTUS and VP.

Far_Silver

No when your voting your voting for 2 people from each party one president and one vice president

FrogButFroggier

Party affiliation has a lot of normative value but formally it's basically a sham. 

Trump could have changed his voter registration from the White House and said he was a woman and technically become the first female democratic president lol (honestly I could see it just to troll Hillary lol)

Harvard_Sucks

Actually, yes. Lincoln (R) had Johnson (D) as his vice president.

court_0f_law

In theory, but the President picks their Vice President, so it is unlikely

Friendlynortherner

President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, chose Andrew Johnson, a Democrat to be his running mate and thus his Vice President. So it has happened before.

bogueybear201

Professor Bret Weinstein tried to make this very thing happen for the 2020 election. He started a grassroots effort called #Unity2020. The goal was to assemble voters and select one candidate from each party and support them in a presidential run. After one term, the two trade being president and vice president and run again. It was a very exciting plan that unfortunately didn't take off.

mattdalorian

In the distant past this was allowed, but was cut off when it caused infighting. Now the presidential nominee must select a candidate for VP to run alongside him/her/them

a-really-cool-potato

I would think so hell I would even want it to be the case as a further checks and balances system.

HardcaseHondo

Yes. Joe Lieberman was on John McCain's short list back in 2008. But as pointed out in *Game Change*, picking a pro-choice VP might cause a floor fight at the Republican Convention. McCain still wanted someone to shake up the campaign and breathe some life into it, so it led him to choose that Governor from Alaska. We all know what happened after that...

notthegoatseguy

for many years the V.P was the looser in a race

they say there is no rule but it will never happen. that’s a fact

&gt;I looked up for it on internet but couldn't really find an answer.

[Really?](https://www.google.com/search?q=can+the+president+and+vice+president+be+from+different+parties&amp;oq=can+the+president+and+vice&amp;aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l8.7183j0j15&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8)

fruitpunchboi

This is going to be the worst "420, blaze it" ever.

SeattleOligarch

There is a reason why blue state governors are being very quiet re: the federal govt. Even Newsome is mostly keeping his mouth shut.


I think this is what they're waiting on. They're trying to see if the feds will use the insurrection act to federalize the national guard and invade blue states - an idea that has been floated publicly before.

BasedDistributist

I just got home from my therapy appointment and my therapist recommended that I try to find some good news everyday...

MISSION FAILED lol

Ok_Tomato7388

The revolution will not be televised. You may get banned here if posting about it by when it fully starts, or at least armies of bots could react to your content.

gmuslera

I think we all should assume this will happen. The current president is testing the boundaries of the constitution and this seems like an obvious way he can grab more power for himself without breaking the law.

ga-co

I suspect the dates also line up when tiktok will either go offline or be sold to the us government

DeltaForceFish

Our democracy cooked there is no coming back from this. We are beyond fucked.

Dalearev

They can be as legally immune as they want but once they start coming for us, it's only a matter of time before some of those at the top are found bludgeoned to death. I hope the mods of this sub ban me for my extremist language too ✌️

NorthernAvo

Insurrectionist invokes Insurrection Act.

Welp, we tried to warn everyone, but nope.

And here we are.

Cultural-Answer-321

I think it is a foregone conclusion.  They are running down the list of project 2025 and this is another item to complete.

It is very likely trump to order his minions to produce legal documents that justify what he wants done.

Do-you-see-it-now

America is a plutocracy.  The only checks against its power are the people, and they are entirely clueless as to what this means.  America serves the rich so they can exploit the masses.  The constitution must be shreded.  It's a bourgeois instrument to wage tyranny against the people.  As long as america exists, the entire world is not safe.

Straight-Razor666

I’ll tell you one thing as a vet. Not everyone in the military will obey these orders. There will be a mutiny in the ranks guaranteed.

darkchi23

is0leucine

Everything is unpredictable from one day to the next anymore but we’re definitely closer to collapse you can sense it

VendettaKarma

I have read the Insurrection Act and its amendments. I think we can bet (based on the recent migration of military personnel toward the border) that Dump intends to call for Martial Law in a Southern Border state (Texas? New Mexico?). 

He will test the waters: Will the state accept Martial Law for the purposes of "strengthening the border" and building further deterrents/strengthening the wall? 

If that state accepts Martial Law, one has to wonder, what is the next step? Will this spread to other border states? 

If this is done at the Southern Border, will this apply to the Canadian Border? 

What is the ultimate goal - My thought is that if he can get away with one movement, he will consider WAR. 

It's up to the American people to condemn war on our allies. Let's not turn this into Russia vs Ukraine in America.

Commandmanda

Is Trump preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act?         Signs are pointing that way

A joint Department of Defense and Homeland Security report will soon recommend whether or not to invoke the Insurrection Act over illegal migration

By Brett Wagner

March 5, 2025

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurrection-act-president-trump-20201819.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/insurrection-act-president-trump-20201819.php)

“But what about civil disobedience?” you might ask. “You can’t just turn America into North Korea overnight!”

The only thing that stopped Trump the last time he ordered the military to open fire on American protesters (“Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”) was the refusal by his then-defense secretary and top general to carry out his order. 

springcypripedium

This is the last thing I wanted to read today

Dwip_Po_Po

All social media will be shutdown.   No communications.

TheGreatTrollMaster

I suspect it won’t be till he needs to use it on everyday Americans rioting in the streets. Take away everyone’s hard earned social security money while firing tens of thousands of government workers and crashing the economy and see what happens. Then use military force to restore order when the “What the f did you do with my money!” protests get heated. 

Someone is liable to get shot and… Isn’t there a 250 year anniversary of some protesters getting shot coming up in April? Some historical event was kicked off that way, but it’s not coming to me at the moment.

Best_Key_6607

It’s been really tough lately to tell whether I am in r/collapse or r/conspiracy. Not saying it’s a bad thing there just seems to be a lot of overlap lately.

TenderLA

Canadian here, with a follow-up question. First off, very well written post. Clear and understandable. My question- if the Insurrection Act is used, would this apply to all states or only states with a southern border.?

JenFMac

Hopefully he would be arrested the same day otherwise we are just another N.Korea.

redpillsrule

&gt;you'll be able to watch and live through the collapse of the United States and it's Constitution in real time.

Woooo!

A win for global civilization.

GracchiBros

Consider making your sub on leemy instance

Example: https://lemmy.ml/

Reddit is gamed. If upvoting a certain someone who’s name is from a Mario game is terrorism, joining your resistance sub will be also. 

Get off Reddit if you actually want to resist. Other than recruiting.

False-Verrigation

We didn’t even invoke the Insurrection act during the actual fucking insurrection in 2021 lmao this guy sucks

recycledairplane1

UK here.  Sorry, but the second-biggest voting bloc in November was for people who knew what Trump was like and voted for him anyway.  The biggest bloc consisted of eligible voters who didn't vote at all.

We're all waaay past the worry stage.  The question isn't whether it will be bad, the only question left at this stage is HOW bad it will be.  Trump is like a five-day build-up of shit that will hurt and which will be unpleasant but which we we'll now all have to endure while it passes.

Bring it on.  Let's get it over with.

MagicSPA

[https://www.nycbar.org/reports/a-call-for-congress-to-clarify-the-insurrection-and-posse-comitatus-acts/](https://www.nycbar.org/reports/a-call-for-congress-to-clarify-the-insurrection-and-posse-comitatus-acts/)  
They're trying to get it in front of SCOTUS by raising this on the circuit court level. It's troubling to say the least

Mcskrully

I mean, who would expect anything else? Collapse is here anyway, and this is very near to how I would predict power and wealth to behave. We already know that we are not all going to survive. No matter what any president anywhere may do, all of our economies are going to crash, global trade will stop, alliances will mean nothing, and countless millions will perish.

Degrowth is coming whether we like it or not, and US policy under Trump is rational, even if it is brutal. They may be evil, but at least they don't hide it very well.

boneyfingers

100% especially since he is about to invoke the alien enemies act within a few days. It is a boiling frog situation once people get used to daily raids without warrants or due process at all they invoke the insurrection act then all bets are off.

AmountUpstairs1350

5manblackhole

America is about to be cut off of the world stage, unless yall go full warfare. Either way it’s not gonna be great.

k1d0s

Diligent_Anybody_583

https://preview.redd.it/2blxrdzlsxne1.jpeg?width=493&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=91946b394068f7231dc6fc78f4538fb4fb2cf97d

rmpbklyn

six sheet sink quicksand march juggle stupendous hunt scarce drunk

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

modernistamphibian

The 22nd Amendment provides:

&gt;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. 

So there's the answer. A VP that becomes President more than two years into the four year term of the departed President can be elected to two full terms of his or her own. A VP that ascends to the office inside the first two years of the President's term, however, can only be elected once in his or her own right.

Bricker1492

Yes. The vice president can finish out the remainder of the current term, as well as run for a maximum of 2 more of their own terms, but they cannot hold office for more than 10 years

abarua01

[Only if they serve less than two years of that term.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) There are *possibly* some weird technicalities around being elected Vice President (or some other position in the succession) *after* having been President, but that's never been close to happening.

robotfindsme

Depends on how long he/she served the remainder of the President's term. If it's more than 2 years, they could only be reelected once. If less than 2 years, they can be reelected twice. The Constitution is specific in this - It says you can only be elected twice to be President and can serve no more than 10 years as President.

So if Harris became President for the remainder of Biden's term, since it's only a few months, she would be eligible to serve 2 more terms if elected in 2 elections (the don't have to be consecutive elections).

MuttJunior

Yes if less than half of the original president’s term is left

froot_loop_dingus_

For your specific example yes because she would serve less than half of his term. A president just can't be elected more than twice or more than once if they served more than half of the term in which they took office through succession

Careless-Internet-63

You cannot be the president for more than ten years, or start a term that would involve you being president for more than two terms. So if Harris were to take office between now and January 20th, she would still be eligible to run for 2 terms. If you take office less than 2 years from Inauguration Day, you can only run for re-election once.

Carlpanzram1916

This can be found online.  Search U.S. Constitution full text pdf

the_NightBoss

Looks like it's it happens after the halfway point they can run two other terms. Biden was vice president for Obama but he never took over at any moment during the tenure. 

VermicelliOwn1698

If Kamala took over right now, yes, she could run for two more years. If she took over for more than two years of Biden’s term, though, she’d be limited to one year

Mountain-Resource656

Total of 2 terms. VP term does not count.

Odd_Tiger_2278

The Vice President criticized the Supreme Court's ruling which mandates the President to decide on state bills in a set timeframe, citing concerns on the separation of powers and constitutional roles.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Criticizes Supreme Court's Directive on Presidential Timelines for State Bills

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want