Whispers' about the 25th Amendment in the Cabinet

Your post proves your point. It "can be seen as..." True. You obviously do. I will defer to the White House physician as opposed to outside observers that hate the man.

 

No, you are seeing what the White House (and Fox News) wants you to see. He's got the speech pattern of a 5th grader among other issues. Most reasonable people can notice that.

 

Who's they ?

 

Approximately 80% of those who disapprove of him also want him removed from office. There is no middle ground.

 

personally i often have the impression your president may have a form of autism.
You don't see that in brilliant people with Asperger syndrome, but sometimes the way he speaks, reacts and corrects himself later seems to give it away,

 

Liberals attack every republican presidents intelligence all the way back to eisenhower

This is just the sme ole same ole

 

My president?

Dont you meam our president?

There is just one president for everyone in America

 

No. There is no requirement for any evidence of disability. There is no requirement for any physical, mental or psychiatric examination.

Here is the relevant text of the 25th Amendment:

All that is required is that the VP plus the majority of the "principal officers of the executive departments" (cabinet?) declare that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
One problem - even those who are most averse to Trump's presidency would struggle to argue that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. He is doing so, daily. Maybe in a way that others don't like. Maybe even in a reckless or dangerous way. But the 25th amendment is not about HOW he discharges his powers and duties. It is about his ABILITY to discharge them. I am not sure that you would get a majority of cabinet to sign onto such a declaration, even if they thought he was acting dangerously. Maybe if he was getting to the point of ordering an unprovoked nuclear attack on another country, but short of that ... I doubt it.

Second problem - the instant such a declaration was delivered, the president would issue his counter-declaration, saying he is fine. Then (if the VP and cabinet continue to say he can't discharge his duties) Congress gets to decide. He would only be removed if two-thirds of BOTH houses say he should be removed. That is a higher bar than impeachment, which only requires a simple majority in the House.

I agree with others that this is a less likely means for removal than impeachment.

 

Dream on

 

What? Did you bother to read my post?

I just said that it is unlikely Trump will be removed by the 25th Amendment.

 

Ok

I did not read far enough,

or at all really,

such is the breakdown in communications between left and right

Sorry bout thst

 

OK. Thanks.

But you should also be aware - I'm not "left". I'm a fiscal conservative.

Just because I recognise that Trump is a moron doesn't mean I'm on the "left". People in his own administration recognise it.

But I agree with you there is a breakdown in communication. We are all victims of confirmation bias, even though we may be aware of the effect.

 

Arent we all?

Even liberals claim to be fiscally conservative

But that message never seems to reach washington

And thats not enough to call yourself a conservative

So lets just label you anti-trump and move on

 

If it is important to you to put everyone into a box and label them, go ahead. But you can't put everyone into left-right, conservative-liberal boxes. If you speak to me about some issues you would think I'm conservative. Other issues you might think I'm liberal.

If you want to label me "anti-Trump" - that is up to you. Although "anti-Trump" really just means "rational and observant".

 

I'm on the other side, but dont disagree. Trump is a threat to the established political system. Left and right demagoguery is kabuki theater for a unified agenda, and trump ain't on the scorecard.

 

So, claiming libertarian?

 

There you go, wanting to put people in boxes.

Like I said, you can label me "rational and observant".

 

he would be if i was an American,

 

They will only require a medical examination if you expect them to vote to remove a sitting president on the claim that he is incapacitated. They won't require one if the constitutional standard is 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

Your best bet - a serious long shot as well- is research what a 'high misdemeanor' meant as a standard for impeachment. It was not a legal term back then. It was a catch-all term for all kinds of gross incompetence, neglect of duty, moral turpitude kinds of charges, and English Parliament impeached plenty of the Kings counselors and judges without asserting a crime had been committed. Our founders stole the same standard .

You will find that you can use those the campaign finance charges, lies, and the same anecdotes and tweets as well as his puppy love for Putin, as misdemeanors which, by the way, are by definition 'high' when a high public official engages in that conduct, because the high profile nature of the conduct magnifies the corrosive impact on the public's trust .

You avoid having to conclude that either a crime was committed via Mueller's report, or that the President is incapacitated. You avoid having to wait for the cabinet to act first, and you only need a simple majority in the House to bring the charge to the Senate. You still have to convince that supermajority in a republican Senate, and that is not going to happen. They like staying employable in their chosen profession.

 

Dont you label others also?

Maybe I shoukd lassify you as an elitest since anti-trump crowd claim to be so much smarter than most trump voters

And being anti-trump you place yourself in a box with all the other trump haters

 

I have read the amendment. My point is the first avenue to attack such a declaration, is to demand for expert medical testimony showing he is unable to discharge those duties secondary to an assessment of his symptoms and a diagnosis . The medical profession works in terms of a symptoms, standards, and diagnosis before anyone ever gets to treatment.

I as a Democrat , would insist on medical evidence of some sort, provided by the scientists we train to acquire and assess mental and physical capacity. That would have been an expectation in 1967, consistent with the term used, when it was ratified - and it will not be forthcoming because nobody has the authority to force a President to undergo an examination or cooperate with tests. Basically, the twenty fifth only works if the man is in a coma or so out of it that he cannot sign his name and speak three consecutive sentences. There can be NO DOUBT if you want to avoid that physical and mental exam.

We are, and have probably always been very close in opinion.

 

Sorry but there is no requirement for any third-party evidence of incapacity.

Such evidence could be used to support the use of Article 25, but it is not necessary.

25th works if
- VP and half the cabinet says it should be applied;
AND
- president doesn't challenge it OR two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate agree with the VP and cabinet

 

Careful what you lick !!

 

Sorry, but that is what any reputable Congressman will insist on, before he or she votes that the man is unable is unable to discharge. Medical testimony is how we acquire evidence of physical and mental ability and capacity in both the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Any administration is going to have some allies insisting that it be taken up in Congress and that means a committee room.

 

Uhm...that's great for a soldier who's job it is to kill the enemy. Not for someone supposed to be leading his own people.....