Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he’s limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office.
Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, “I’m going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to.” You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they’re completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.
The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.
This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I’m not confident they will with trump.
There is precedent and it’s been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama’s constitutional term limits.
There’s really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you’re going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn’t win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There’s language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.
It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn’t govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.
Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, “I’m going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to.” You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they’re completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.
The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.
This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I’m not confident they will with trump.
There is precedent and it’s been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama’s constitutional term limits.
There’s really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you’re going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn’t win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There’s language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.
It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn’t govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.