Rules don’t matter when you own the Supreme Court. The SC will just rule that it’s clear that the founding fathers didn’t mean Florida so it’s actually fine if they’re both from Florida, the end.
1 Like
12th amendment: 1804
Florida joins the union: 1845
They can’t have meant Florida!
18 Likes
He’s put up 96 million in bonds for the appeals…
No he didn’t. Chubb did.
Cheney and Bush were both from Texas for the 2000 election. Cheney just changed his voting registration to somewhere in Wyoming and that was that. Since Rubio is a sitting Senator, presumably Trump would be the one to change.
Trump ain’t changing shit. That’s not what alphas do. And he sees himself as the ultimate alpha.
Yeah, if the Florida residency thing ever became an issue, Trump would just make the VP candidate pay a few million dollars to rent out a supply shed at Bedminster and claim New Jersey residency.
Wouldn’t someone like Rubio or DeSantis have to step down from their current positions to pull this move? Can they serve in their current positions if they are no longer Florida residents?
Usually they resign after the election so they have a fallback plan.
That’s my point. In this case they would have to resign before, right?
I was hoping someone knew the relevant laws but it would seem that there has to be a law somewhere that says you can’t be a Senator or Governor of FL if you are not an actual resident of FL.
I was really just making a joke, so I’m not going to spend time looking into Senate procedure and Florida state law (if anyone else knows, maybe they can jump in), but the constitution says Senators must be an inhabitant when elected
"Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
So, if you really want to yolo it, just argue that Rubio was a Floridian when he was elected Senator.
Thanks. That seems pretty open and shut to me. Based on that alone, seems like it would be perfectly reasonable to be a NY resident and if he loses, he can just revert.
Maybe you know this off the top of your head. Is there anything that says you can’t be a Senator and VP at the same time.? Or Governor and VP? As far as I can think of, the only thing preventing it has been norms and the desire to do a good job, neither of which these people really care about.
Not sure about Governor. As far as Senate or Representative:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C2-1/ALDE_00013136/
" no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
This seems pretty clear to me, but if I recall correctly, in the case about taking Trump off the Colorado ballot, there was an argument that the Presidency was not “an office” so maybe you could argue that about the VP as well. [I don’t think it’s a winning argument especially because we have actual examples of folks stepping down in order to take over the VP slot, but “likelihood of success” hasn’t stopped Trump and his lawyers from making arguments]
As I recall, KBJ was apparently buying that argument. Did they mention that argument in the opinion that came out?
lol. Even veteran UP’ers are still to this day nitpicking lollawbro technicalities as if they might actually mean something.
Someone post that Commodus gif, please…
7 Likes
I don’t know if it’s ever been litigated, but if this actually happened, I assume they would have Rubio resign after the election, then move before the electors meet to formally cast their votes and then argue that at the time the electors voted, Rubio was no longer a resident of Florida so it’s fine.
This is all irrelevant because Trump is never picking Rubio.
It’s going to be one of Tim Scott, Elise Stefanik or Kristi Noem.
No one thinks they mean anything (well, at least not me). It’s just curiosity.
This also seems way more legit than the usual bullshit arguments they trot out.
The US Supreme Court opinion did not address that issue because they based the decision on the state vs federal issue. The original Colorado court had said that the Presidency is not “an office,” while the Colorado Supreme Court said it is.
1 Like