Anonymous Op-Ed from the NYT

[One Bad Pig]

I think he's right.

Source: 25th amendment, section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, that reads to me that:

if "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress"

can agree he's 'unable', they can kick him out. No definition of what constitutes 'unable', there just needs to be a large consensus that whatever it is, he's unfit.

It wouldn't be easy, but I don't see why crazy as a loon doesn't qualify.



Jim

You cut off the first quote too early: ...Congress may by law provide. For Congress to arrogate that to themselves without the President's approval, it would have to be passed by a large enough majority to override the President's likely veto. THEN you'd need to get Pence to agree. I'd file this under "theoretically possible, but highly unlikely to ever occur in practice."

[Sparko]

I think he's right.

Source: 25th amendment, section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, that reads to me that:

if "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress"

can agree he's 'unable', they can kick him out. No definition of what constitutes 'unable', there just needs to be a large consensus that whatever it is, he's unfit.

It wouldn't be easy, but I don't see why crazy as a loon doesn't qualify.



Jim

It would have to have a medical diagnosis before that could happen. Not some opinion.

The clear meaning of the 25th amendment is physically or medically incapacitated. And if he gets better he can resume office. So it would need a medical diagnosis of a physical or mental disability that was grave enough to keep him from doing his duty. Not "due to incapacity of any sort" - you can't remove him for breaking a leg or getting the flu, for example.

[Mountain Man]

Tassman, as he often does, added a whole bunch of his own spin -- "due to incapacity of any sort". That's not in the 25th amendment.

The pertinent wording is "their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".

It is not something to be taken lightly, and they would have to be pretty solidly convinced he was "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".

Yep... The wording is crystal clear and deliberately sets a VERY high bar. The 25th Amendment can not be used to arbitrarily declare the president unfit for office. Liberals who claim otherwise are just being ignorant.

[Terraceth]

Yep... The wording is crystal clear and deliberately sets a VERY high bar. The 25th Amendment can not be used to arbitrarily declare the president unfit for office. Liberals who claim otherwise are just being ignorant.

Well, you technically can do so arbitrarily, it's just that it's really hard to imagine a situation in which the vice president, majority of cabinet members, and 2/3 of both houses would arbitrarily agree to remove the president.

[Cow Poke]

Well, you technically can do so arbitrarily, it's just that it's really hard to imagine a situation in which the vice president, majority of cabinet members, and 2/3 of both houses would arbitrarily agree to remove the president.

Exactly, it has to be more than "we hate his guts and think he's nuts".


ETA: Was it Nixon, about whom they said "In your heart, you know he's right - in your guts, you know he's nuts"?

ETA: Voters increasingly viewed Goldwater as a right-wing fringe candidate. His slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" was successfully parodied by the Johnson campaign into "In your guts, you know he's nuts", or "In your heart, you know he might" (as in "he might push the nuclear button"), or even "In your heart, he's too far right". Some cynics wore buttons saying "Even Johnson is better than Goldwater! source

[carpedm9587]

Actually the hysterics of the left really does a great job undercutting them. OBP is right. Spare me the fake outrage and double standards.

My outrage isn't fake - and I suspect you cannot show that I have "double standards." I'm not "the left." I'm just Michel.

[carpedm9587]

Hopefully, they aren't the only one with a functioning mind...

[carpedm9587]

I was asking serious questions. I would genuinely have liked to see your answers. Apparently you've got nothing.

OBP - when someone tells me that I "do not have amoral leg to stand on" on the basis of what other people have said, I have to conclude they have stopped discussing rationally. Your post exemplifies pretty much everything I was saying. I leave it to those who read to come to their own conclusions. When you actually have serious questions, I'll be happy to respond.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, but they won't necessarily reach the conclusion you want.

Oh I'm pretty sure anyone with an unbiased frame of mind will come to a reasonable conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

No it doesn't.

So, out of curiosity, what do you think the 25th amendment says?

[Cow Poke]

OBP - when someone tells me that I "do not have amoral leg to stand on" on the basis of what other people have said, I have to conclude they have stopped discussing rationally. Your post exemplifies pretty much everything I was saying. I leave it to those who read to come to their own conclusions. When you actually have serious questions, I'll be happy to respond.

Did you really mean "amoral"?

[One Bad Pig]

OBP - when someone tells me that I "do not have amoral leg to stand on" on the basis of what other people have said, I have to conclude they have stopped discussing rationally. Your post exemplifies pretty much everything I was saying. I leave it to those who read to come to their own conclusions. When you actually have serious questions, I'll be happy to respond.

I don't recall you having a whole lot to say about your ideological compatriots' treatment of the office when someone they don't like occupies it. IIRC, you're the one claiming that silence makes one complicit.

I'll retract that charge given proof it's false. I'm not trying to paint you in a false light.

[oxmixmudd]

You cut off the first quote too early: ...Congress may by law provide. For Congress to arrogate that to themselves without the President's approval, it would have to be passed by a large enough majority to override the President's likely veto. THEN you'd need to get Pence to agree. I'd file this under "theoretically possible, but highly unlikely to ever occur in practice."

We were speaking of what is possible. I noted it would be difficult.

[carpedm9587]

Did you really mean "amoral"?

For lack of a space, the kingdom was lost...

[carpedm9587]

I don't recall you having a whole lot to say about your ideological compatriots' treatment of the office when someone they don't like occupies it. IIRC, you're the one claiming that silence makes one complicit.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke.)

I'll retract that charge given proof it's false. I'm not trying to paint you in a false light.

You'd be unique here on TWeb. At the very least I appear to be culpable for anything a left-ist says - and I have to "prove" I don't agree to get free of that stigma. Yet we live in a country where the legal norm is "innocent until proven guilty. I reject your assertion that I have to prove my innocence, and suggest that the maxim of American law requires you to prove my guilt.