Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Should Congress and the States make a Constitutional Amendment using Article V of Constitution to make an exclusive one time exception to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (only natural born citizens), so #ElonMusk can run for President in #election2028? #election2024#WhiteHouse

PoliticAllUS

1,010 subscribers

108,991 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics #ElonMusk #election2028

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Comments

Ϩϣɛɛӷ_Ӈυϩӈɑʚʯɛ 🔞🏳️‍⚧️1 year ago

No, end of discussion.

PoliticAllUS1 year ago

Good point! Start debate on to share more thoughts like this!

Dik Wood1 year ago

Not only no, but hell fucking no under no circumstances.

PoliticAllUS1 year ago

Good point! Rules like these are definitely there for a reason. 👏 Start debate on to share more thoughts like this!

Calm Like a Bomb 💣1 year ago

Absolutely not

PoliticAllUS1 year ago

Good point! Rules like these are definitely there for a reason. 👏 Start debate on to share more thoughts like this!

Robert Phillips1 year ago

No. I like Elon, but that rule is there for a reason.

PoliticAllUS1 year ago

Good point! Start debate on to share more thoughts like this!

ecruimcp1 year ago

No. Simple answer, no. He's great, I love what he is and does. But, no. As soon as an exception to that is made, our next president will be a BRICS funded and aligned foreigner. If you don't think that's the case, you're ignorance speaks volumes.

PoliticAllUS1 year ago

Good point! Rules like these are definitely there for a reason. 👏 Start debate on to share more thoughts like this!

Related Videos

Rep. Nancy Mace just proposed a constitutional amendment requiring Members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers to be natural-born U.S. citizens — the same standard already required for President and Vice President. Mace posted: “We just introduced a long overdue joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to require Members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers to be natural born citizens. This is the very same standard the President and Vice President are already required to meet.” She points to Reps. Ilhan Omar (born in Somalia), Pramila Jayapal (born in India), and Shri Thanedar (born in India) as examples of divided loyalties. Passing a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of Congress + 3/4 of states — a very high bar. Should only natural-born Americans write our laws and judge our cases? (Video: AI)

Rep. Nancy Mace just proposed a constitutional amendment requiring Members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers to be natural-born U.S. citizens — the same standard already required for President and Vice President. Mace posted: “We just introduced a long overdue joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to require Members of Congress, federal judges, and Senate-confirmed officers to be natural born citizens. This is the very same standard the President and Vice President are already required to meet.” She points to Reps. Ilhan Omar (born in Somalia), Pramila Jayapal (born in India), and Shri Thanedar (born in India) as examples of divided loyalties. Passing a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of Congress + 3/4 of states — a very high bar. Should only natural-born Americans write our laws and judge our cases? (Video: AI)

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

321,322 views • 3 months ago

I am proud to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring federal judges to be natural-born citizens. Judges should have lifelong allegiance to the United States, and the United States only. End of story.

I am proud to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring federal judges to be natural-born citizens. Judges should have lifelong allegiance to the United States, and the United States only. End of story.

Rep. Clay Fuller

327,547 views • 1 month ago

I spoke with Wealthion on the SOLUTION to the US DEBT PROBLEM: “The only way to escape America’s debt crisis is to invoke Article V of the US Constitution and call a limited Constitutional Convention. This would allow for a debt brake amendment to the US Constitution."

I spoke with Wealthion on the SOLUTION to the US DEBT PROBLEM: “The only way to escape America’s debt crisis is to invoke Article V of the US Constitution and call a limited Constitutional Convention. This would allow for a debt brake amendment to the US Constitution."

Steve Hanke

36,875 views • 1 month ago

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives President Trump authority to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions.” With drone incursions and bombs at American military bases and an ongoing conflict with Iran, this is just such an occasion.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution gives President Trump authority to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions.” With drone incursions and bombs at American military bases and an ongoing conflict with Iran, this is just such an occasion.

Mike Lee

49,909 views • 5 months ago

At no point do the Articles of the Constitution state that the first lady may sit in for the President when he cannot fulfill his duties. In fact, article II section 1 explicitly states the vice president has that responsibility.

At no point do the Articles of the Constitution state that the first lady may sit in for the President when he cannot fulfill his duties. In fact, article II section 1 explicitly states the vice president has that responsibility.

The Redheaded libertarian

4,530,507 views • 2 years ago

Just me being naughty here as usual and this time interfering in ZANU PF internal matters; in this latest move by Mnangagwa’s sidekick Ziyambi Ziyambi hosting meetings this weekend in Zvimba to launch an attempt bid to postpone ZANU PF party congress scheduled for 2027 to kicked to 2030. In my binder that is a legal minefield that is set for a new internal war of attrition. According to the ZANU-PF constitution, and its amendments adopted at the 7th Congress in 2022, on examination with my “limited” understanding of the law of meetings, there is an important distinction between what the constitution expressly permits and what the party might be able to achieve through a constitutional amendment. The key clause here is: Article 5, Section 25: I am saying the most important provision is Article 5, Section 25 of the ZANU-PF Constitution. “The Party shall convene an ordinary Congress once every five years.” Section 25(2) then provides that: “The Secretary for Administration shall, at least three months before the due date, send a notice of convening Congress to all members, which notice shall state the date and the venue.” This is significant because the language is mandatory: “shall convene” rather than “may convene”. The party itself relied on this provision when it convened the 2022 Congress. The 2022 Congress was the seventh ordinary National People’s Congress, and the party’s own subsequent statements have consistently treated 2027 as the next Congress. What does that mean for 2027? The 7th Congress was held in October 2022. Therefore, the five-year constitutional cycle takes the next ordinary Congress into 2027. Importantly, I have not found a provision in the current publicly available material that expressly gives the Politburo, President and First Secretary, National Consultative Assembly or Central Committee a general power to postpone an ordinary Congress beyond the five-year period. That is the crucial point. Article 5, Section 23 — Congress is the supreme organ is massive. Article 5, Section 23 establishes the National People’s Congress as the supreme organ of the party. Article 5, Section 24 then gives Congress extensive powers, including electing the President and First Secretary, electing Central Committee members, determining party policy and, importantly, exercising the power to amend the party constitution. This creates an interesting constitutional problem. The body that has the supreme constitutional authority is Congress itself, while the ordinary Congress is constitutionally required to meet every five years. So the argument being advanced by Ziyambi and his acolytes that a subordinate organ, provincial organs or structures appointed by the President could simply say: “We are proposing the postponement of Congress for another two or three years”is not obviously supported by Article 5. There is only One Me!! 🤪 Huya tibike nyaya dzezvemabumbiro Thabani Mpofu kana wabva kuKereke 😂😂

Just me being naughty here as usual and this time interfering in ZANU PF internal matters; in this latest move by Mnangagwa’s sidekick Ziyambi Ziyambi hosting meetings this weekend in Zvimba to launch an attempt bid to postpone ZANU PF party congress scheduled for 2027 to kicked to 2030. In my binder that is a legal minefield that is set for a new internal war of attrition. According to the ZANU-PF constitution, and its amendments adopted at the 7th Congress in 2022, on examination with my “limited” understanding of the law of meetings, there is an important distinction between what the constitution expressly permits and what the party might be able to achieve through a constitutional amendment. The key clause here is: Article 5, Section 25: I am saying the most important provision is Article 5, Section 25 of the ZANU-PF Constitution. “The Party shall convene an ordinary Congress once every five years.” Section 25(2) then provides that: “The Secretary for Administration shall, at least three months before the due date, send a notice of convening Congress to all members, which notice shall state the date and the venue.” This is significant because the language is mandatory: “shall convene” rather than “may convene”. The party itself relied on this provision when it convened the 2022 Congress. The 2022 Congress was the seventh ordinary National People’s Congress, and the party’s own subsequent statements have consistently treated 2027 as the next Congress. What does that mean for 2027? The 7th Congress was held in October 2022. Therefore, the five-year constitutional cycle takes the next ordinary Congress into 2027. Importantly, I have not found a provision in the current publicly available material that expressly gives the Politburo, President and First Secretary, National Consultative Assembly or Central Committee a general power to postpone an ordinary Congress beyond the five-year period. That is the crucial point. Article 5, Section 23 — Congress is the supreme organ is massive. Article 5, Section 23 establishes the National People’s Congress as the supreme organ of the party. Article 5, Section 24 then gives Congress extensive powers, including electing the President and First Secretary, electing Central Committee members, determining party policy and, importantly, exercising the power to amend the party constitution. This creates an interesting constitutional problem. The body that has the supreme constitutional authority is Congress itself, while the ordinary Congress is constitutionally required to meet every five years. So the argument being advanced by Ziyambi and his acolytes that a subordinate organ, provincial organs or structures appointed by the President could simply say: “We are proposing the postponement of Congress for another two or three years”is not obviously supported by Article 5. There is only One Me!! 🤪 Huya tibike nyaya dzezvemabumbiro Thabani Mpofu kana wabva kuKereke 😂😂

Bla B

17,347 views • 1 month ago

JUST IN 🇺🇸🇮🇷: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Admits the Operation Epic Fury is a WAR So much for Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, that Congress holds the exclusive power to formally declare war.

JUST IN 🇺🇸🇮🇷: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Admits the Operation Epic Fury is a WAR So much for Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, that Congress holds the exclusive power to formally declare war.

Ryan Rozbiani

44,516 views • 6 months ago

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit jurisdiction of federal courts. My Injunctive Authority Clarification Act does exactly that. Woke activist judges must be not allowed to make sweeping legislative decisions for all Americans.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit jurisdiction of federal courts. My Injunctive Authority Clarification Act does exactly that. Woke activist judges must be not allowed to make sweeping legislative decisions for all Americans.

Rep Andy Biggs

414,438 views • 1 year ago

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, prohibits one chamber of Congress to adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. To meet this constitutional requirement we hold pro forma sessions. Today, I had the honor of standing in the Speaker's Chair, serving as Speaker Pro Tempore.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, prohibits one chamber of Congress to adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. To meet this constitutional requirement we hold pro forma sessions. Today, I had the honor of standing in the Speaker's Chair, serving as Speaker Pro Tempore.

Congressman Jim Baird

60,468 views • 2 months ago

Raskin: I heard one of our colleagues across the aisle just say, “Well, yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does give Congress the exclusive, plenary, comprehensive power to declare war and not the president. And we could be debating it, but the president has already taken us to war, so it’s too late. It would undermine the cause for us to debate it.” What a humiliating, self-defeating argument for a member of the Article I branch of Congress to be making. Don’t you understand? That destroys our power to declare war if any president can plunge us into a war and thereby defeat our exclusive, plenary power over it—

Raskin: I heard one of our colleagues across the aisle just say, “Well, yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 does give Congress the exclusive, plenary, comprehensive power to declare war and not the president. And we could be debating it, but the president has already taken us to war, so it’s too late. It would undermine the cause for us to debate it.” What a humiliating, self-defeating argument for a member of the Article I branch of Congress to be making. Don’t you understand? That destroys our power to declare war if any president can plunge us into a war and thereby defeat our exclusive, plenary power over it—

Acyn

406,195 views • 6 months ago

MURKOWSKI: Has the administration considered seeking an authorization for use of military force from Congress? HEGSETH: Our view is that should the president make the decision to recommence, we would have all the authorities to do so under Article 2

MURKOWSKI: Has the administration considered seeking an authorization for use of military force from Congress? HEGSETH: Our view is that should the president make the decision to recommence, we would have all the authorities to do so under Article 2

Aaron Rupar

91,536 views • 4 months ago

In 2023, I opposed an outrageous amendment that barred any president from unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. I voted against handcuffing the President & for preserving his Article II authority to terminate treaties. The Founders placed this power in the executive, unlike a divided Congress, because only the President can speak with one voice & act with the speed needed to negotiate or exit treaties.

In 2023, I opposed an outrageous amendment that barred any president from unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. I voted against handcuffing the President & for preserving his Article II authority to terminate treaties. The Founders placed this power in the executive, unlike a divided Congress, because only the President can speak with one voice & act with the speed needed to negotiate or exit treaties.

Senator Rand Paul

217,129 views • 5 months ago

ABC’s Jonathan Karl more radical than Zohran Kwame Mamdani? Mamdani rejects Karl’s idea of amending U.S. Constitution so the socialist could become President: Karl: “I got to ask you, I noticed that you’re turning 35 soon, right?...So you now hit one of the constitutional requirements to run for President. But there’s another one that says you have to be a natural born citizen. You were not born here. Do you think that’s something that should be changed in the constitution. It would take an amendment. But do you think that we should change that?” Mamdani: “No, the constitution looks good the way it is.”

ABC’s Jonathan Karl more radical than Zohran Kwame Mamdani? Mamdani rejects Karl’s idea of amending U.S. Constitution so the socialist could become President: Karl: “I got to ask you, I noticed that you’re turning 35 soon, right?...So you now hit one of the constitutional requirements to run for President. But there’s another one that says you have to be a natural born citizen. You were not born here. Do you think that’s something that should be changed in the constitution. It would take an amendment. But do you think that we should change that?” Mamdani: “No, the constitution looks good the way it is.”

Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱

18,876 views • 2 months ago

We have 535 Members of Congress but just one President. That's why we need a bipartisan independent commission under the 25th Amendment to make sure this president—and all future presidents—are fit to discharge the duties of their office. Congress should pass H.R. 8275 to fill this constitutional void.

We have 535 Members of Congress but just one President. That's why we need a bipartisan independent commission under the 25th Amendment to make sure this president—and all future presidents—are fit to discharge the duties of their office. Congress should pass H.R. 8275 to fill this constitutional void.

Rep. Jamie Raskin

173,336 views • 5 months ago

The solution to a rogue judiciary isn’t to just complain about the Court, or even to wait around for a do-nothing Congress. The Founders provided the solution in Article V of the Constitution: giving STATES the authority to propose amendments and rein in the federal government. ➡️ for more

The solution to a rogue judiciary isn’t to just complain about the Court, or even to wait around for a do-nothing Congress. The Founders provided the solution in Article V of the Constitution: giving STATES the authority to propose amendments and rein in the federal government. ➡️ for more

Jenna Ellis 🐊

48,828 views • 2 months ago

The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab has unanimously approved a Constitutional Resolution under Article 144(1) for consideration by the National Assembly and Senate. The resolution demands a Constitutional Amendment in Article 140-A to strengthen Local Governments and introduce a separate Chapter titled “Local Governments” in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Co-sponsored with Ali Haider Gilani (H.I.) (PP-211) under the umbrella of the Punjab Local Government Caucus.

The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab has unanimously approved a Constitutional Resolution under Article 144(1) for consideration by the National Assembly and Senate. The resolution demands a Constitutional Amendment in Article 140-A to strengthen Local Governments and introduce a separate Chapter titled “Local Governments” in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Co-sponsored with Ali Haider Gilani (H.I.) (PP-211) under the umbrella of the Punjab Local Government Caucus.

Ahmad Iqbal ۰ احمد اقبال 🇵🇰

16,375 views • 10 months ago