If the Vice Presidency is vacant, the President nominates and Congress (both houses) confirm.
> Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
That would not be directing him to vacate the office, but yes he could probably do that. But he wouldn't elect Musk, he could nominate Musk. He'd still need Congress (beholden to Musk for their future seats if GOP) to confirm him. But you also have to be qualified to be President to be Vice President, so Musk would be disqualified anyways.
Who is going to disqualify him? Republicans would just invent some doublethink for why it is okay for this particular African to have that role. The extremely partisan SCOTUS will allow it, and that will be that.
If SCOTUS says it's ok, then the US Constitution is completely tossed out and SCOTUS has no authority to say anything. That's not to say they wouldn't make a decision like that, but to disregard the literal text of the Constitution would make both Congress and SCOTUS unnecessary, they can be scrapped in seconds with an EO after a decision like that.
They'd pull the same stunt that they did for Trump. If Trump had been convicted for the Jan 6th riot, that would've disqualified him from becoming president. So SCOTUS dragged out the appeal that reached them. Then their decision made it ridiculously burdensome to continue. If Musk were nominated as vice president and somebody sued, SCOTUS could drag out that case past the end of the term. Then they'd drop it as moot.
We've already had that decision, last year. Trump v. Anderson. Per the Supreme Court, if Congress doesn't explicitly call something out down to the last detail and already have anyone potentially impacted on double-secret probation, then oops, too bad, nothing anyone else can do to enforce the Constitution.
The Vice-President and President need to meet the standards in the Constitution? Did Congress pass a law establishing how those standards are to be judged and enforced? No? Guess they don't matter then. If Congress wanted, it could pass a law and Trump could sign it. Unless that happens, the Constitution is just unenforceable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In Russia they say, "we have lots of laws, just no one pays any attention to them". Russia is a law-less State. Concur with how things are progressing now in USA. Congress and Senate both subverted by too many voters being deceived by D. Elections not well-informed, so not actually functional.
Sure, and I'd default to assuming the % in the military is always higher because they're trained to follow orders.
But if anything makes some among them say "to allow this would be to violate my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", then disregarding the constitution would be it.
I'm not saying the administration wouldn't try it. I am suggesting that it may lead to a demonstration of how NIJ RF3 doesn't stop 120×570mm NATO.
And just generally, every time someone told me Trump wasn’t going to last the first term or run again I tried to bet them. A few took me up.
It’s a strange fantasy that guy you don’t like will just go away. How many presidents or VPs don’t last a full term? Anyone who thinks that has let their emotions divorce their logic from reality, and is thus a good person to wager against
I suspect Trump lasting the entire term is less likely.
If something happens to Trump after January 20th, 2027, Vance can serve out the remainder of this term, then run as the incumbent for two additional terms as a frontman for the Musk/Thiel axis, a role he has played well for some time.
If the country's rulers want to bother to keep the pretense of Constitutional government, that is.
It does not seem like Trump actually wants a deal. They are not offering anything. It appears to be simply a pretext to have some reason to berate Ukraine and Zelenskyy.
"Oh you won't take our [completely ridiculous] deal? I guess we'll just have to side with Russia then!" Like that's not what they were going to do anyway.
>a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.
It will not. Trump will simply use the deal as an excuse to betray Ukraine (more than he already has). I can practically hear it playing out now.
"I had to force Ukraine to completely surrender to Russia. It was the only way to make sure Russia honored the mineral rights granted to my billionaire friends."
This is what made Mike Pence the perfect VP for Trump at the time - he was never gonna steal the spotlight from Trump. However, Trump is focused almost entirely on loyalty now - the one thing that Mike Pence lacked in the end.
> It looks like the US wants a regime change in Ukraine, it's possible that this became a pre condition from russia for talks to go forward.
It's not just possible, it was stated openly multiple times by Russian diplomats. The official position is: anything signed by Zelensky has potential to be invalidated later, because according to constitution of Ukraine he is not a legitimate president anymore. So this legal loophole should be removed before signing any agreements.
The outcome was predetermined. Z was not fully sold on this, and Trump/Vance just wanted to maximize the optics, hence the fall out. Just a small ripple, the deep states will rebalance this out.
OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.
Lots of drama and optics involved for sure, but it seems the outcome or the talks was predetermined
JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?