There are no actual qualifications for most elected positions. You just need people to vote for you. Many years ago in my high school, student government was a popularity contest. Not much different than actual government it seems.
I think Trump may have thought that, but he did run into a lot of problems besides constitutional constraints on his powers. There's a difference between not having stipulated qualifications and not having enough political savvy or common sense to at least appear to adhere to expected norms of behavior and even speech in elective positions at the national level.
"Context is everything": As a practical matter, Trump didn't really understand the powers of either the House or the Senate when he took office. While he usually had the support of the far right wing of the GOP in both houses of Congress, he continually spaced out that those office holders also had their own agendas and constituent issues to deal with... never mind a long history of dealing with each other and with the other chamber.
Rock'n'roll is great, but if you're trying to run a dance hall full of people who have been trading ideas during breaks in minuets and gavottes for a couple centuries... you may eventually be viewed as a party crasher rather than its leader. Trump is looking at that situation right now.
And... in the 117th Congress, some new members and some who should know better already, seem not to realize that being a president and being a congress critter are two different things when it comes to testing limits of power on the job.
Trump may have appeared immune from consequence of breaking norms that used to be guardrails against a rogue president getting too carried away with himself. But it's not all that obvious that dispensing with norms in either the House or Senate can come at a high cost to be exacted by peers or leaders down the road. Bottom line: ability to get out of one's own perceived power bubble is a qualification for an elective job in DC.
thehill.com
