She doesn't legally qualify to hold the office of the VP. Constitutionally she isn't the VP.
She doesn't legally qualify to hold the office of the VP. Constitutionally she isn't the VP.
She doesn't legally qualify to hold the office of the VP.
Wait one. What did I miss?
> She doesn't legally qualify to hold the office of the VP.
Wait one. What did I miss?
Look at her background. Now look at the requirements to hold VP. She doesn't qualify.
Only ever seen this raised a couple of times. For some reason no one seems to care.
Look at her background. Now look at the requirements to hold VP. She doesn't qualify.
Only ever seen this raised a couple of times. For some reason no one seems to care.
Look at her background. Now look at the requirements to hold VP. She doesn't qualify.
I will have to do that later. I'm about to host a conference call.
EDIT: Damn the whole anchor baby thing. To me it looks as if she qualifies on a technicality.
>
Look at her background. Now look at the requirements to hold VP. She doesn't qualify.
I will have to do that later. I'm about to host a conference call.
EDIT: Damn the whole anchor baby thing. To me it looks as if she qualifies on a technicality.
No kidding yet the law and constitution literally doesn't apply to them, only their opposition.
No kidding yet the law and constitution literally doesn't apply to them, only their opposition.
(post is archived)