Calling it “an open legal question” implies meaningful doubt, but in reality, the text, intent, succession laws, and scholarly consensus have already answered this decisively. The only way this alternate interpretation prevails is a corrupt supreme court. Oh…wait. 🤣

The 12th Amendment provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” As such, anyone barred by the 22nd Amendment from being elected president is also ineligible to serve as vice president, and so a twice-elected president cannot return to power through vice-presidential succession.

If a person is constitutionally “ineligible to the office of President,” they are also skipped over in the presidential line of succession under the Presidential Succession Act (3 U.S.C. §19), which prohibits anyone ineligible to serve as president from assuming the office.

The ghouls in power currently don’t understand or don’t care, and by the time this is tested, it will likely be rubber stamped by the supreme court. But, there’s still value in understanding ahead of time that no, that is not a constitutionally valid approach.

The biggest win is getting more people involved and comfortable with protesting and non compliance. Today was the largest single day protest in American history and up 40% from No Kings I.

You can’t go from zero to prolonged protests over night. Each event needs to build on the last with increased experience and new participation.

The same and obvious inconsistent purpose for guns does not apply to fascism, which is why your example with guns is a poor example.

• If you are anti-fascist, you reject fascism.
• If you are anti-anti-fascist, you accept fascism.

Similarly,

• If you are anti-guns, you reject guns.
• If you are anti-anti-guns, you accept guns.

See how it works just as well as “negation” so long as you don’t attach an inconsistent purpose or meaning to what you’re negating?

You can certainly go ahead and assign inconsistency to antifa to make the point that anti-antifa is not equivalent to pro-fascism, but that really has nothing to do with the meaning of the anti- prefix.

So you can call it an anti-murder device.

Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say “anti-gun” and follow your logic we don’t know if you’ve meant you’re anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.

The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.

Some lower bounds have been established: https://oeis.org/A099155