╌>

Democrat Seeks To Change Presidential Removal Procedure

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  community  •  7 years ago  •  91 comments

Democrat Seeks To Change Presidential Removal Procedure

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed a bill during the two-week April break that would let the vice president and former presidents collaborate to decide if a president is fit for office.

“It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the vice president to examine whether the president is able to discharge the duties of the office," Blumenauer said. When there are questions about the president’s ability to fulfill his or her constitutional responsibilities, it is in the country’s best interest to have a mechanism in place that works effectively."

According to The Hill, Blumenauer’s proposal stems from the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which the Democrat claims would fall short in cases of emotional or mental incapacity.

The amendment mandates that the vice president becomes the president if the sitting president dies or resigns. It also lets the VP take over, if the VP and a majority of Cabinet officers agree to the move.

In the event a president refused to step down, two-thirds of both the House and Senate have to vote in favor of removal to force a presidential resignation. 

But Blumenauer says the mechanism is flawed.

 

 

“Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve. It’s time to revisit and strengthen the Amendment and make sure there is a reliable mechanism in place if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Blumenauer said.

Blumenauer’s bill aims to have former presidents and vice presidents collaborate with the current vice president instead.

Blumenauer discussed his idea on the House floor back in February.

Several Democratic lawmakers have publicly questioned President Trump’s psychological state since his election.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/democrat-seeks-change-presidential-removal-procedure


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6    7 years ago

More short shortsightedness

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
link   PJ    7 years ago

This is a very bad idea.  There are already ways to remove an unfit President and this would take away the power from the people.  This is dangerous and stupid.

Trump and his idiot heirs will hang themselves eventually when their constant ethic violations catch up with them.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  PJ   7 years ago

PJ I must say I am impressed that you see the true danger of this stupid move.  Most liberals are 100% behind it.   I think the nuclear option was equally as short sighted.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
link   PJ  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

There is your error.  I am not a liberal but because I do have some liberal leanings I have been attacked constantly on this site as a liberal and laughed at when I say I am moderate on some issues.  I guess my views about women have upset many of the men here so I'm labeled a democrat.  Which is silly because it only reinforces the common belief that republicans don't value women aside from fuck toys and being able to control them.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ   7 years ago

Your views about women cowering in fear about a guy says grab them by the pussy are indeed amusing. I've yet to see a man cower in fear of a woman that says grab em by the balls. 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

I've yet to see a man cower in fear of a woman that says grab em by the balls.

She can't do it unless you let her and, if you let her, its foreplay. But Trump was right. There are lots of floozies that will let him grab their pussy the same they would happily have it grabbed by movie stars, musicians, ball players, Bill Clinton, etc. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
link   Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 years ago

Your views about women cowering in fear about a guy says grab them by the pussy are indeed amusing.

It's not about cowering in fear.  It's about the message being conveyed, and the example being set...by the President of the United States.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom   7 years ago

Is this something he said since he was the President?  Or something that he said while campaigning?  Or something that was said a decade ago?  If the person that taped it was so incensed, why did it take 10+ years to get upset?  No, the person was and is an opportunist.  I'm sure most of us would hate to have our life over the decades dissected and published for the world to see-we've all done stupid shit, some more epic than others.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  PJ   7 years ago

I'm convinced.  A true liberal never would have called this out for what it really is, just ask JR.   I must admit you are certainly left leaning and a little over the top on what you generally describe as "pussy control" though.

 
 
 
Jerry Verlinger
Freshman Silent
link   Jerry Verlinger  replied to  PJ   7 years ago

Trump and his idiot heirs will hang themselves eventually when their constant ethic violations catch up with them.

There are a lot of Americans that feel the same way.

I've heard there are actually voting pools available that are based on the time that will happen.

My guess is, Trump will be in office for less than two years. 

(If the country can survive under a Trump presidency for that long)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    7 years ago

This is a shiny thing to distract the hate filled extremists who constitute the base of the democratic party.

It will go nowhere. 

 
 
 
Jerry Verlinger
Freshman Silent
link   Jerry Verlinger  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

It will go nowhere. 

I would not place a bet on that.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Jerry Verlinger   7 years ago

I would.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

So would anyone with the least understanding of poltics.

 
 
 
Jerry Verlinger
Freshman Silent
link   Jerry Verlinger  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

I would.

The incompetence being demonstrated by President  Donald trump, demonstrates exactly why article 4 of the 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution.

Trump cannot do the job, and is going to bring us into an actual war that could possibly include nuclear weapons. 

The guy is a liar, has zero scruples, has no control over his mouth and is the most dangerous of the 14 Presidents that have been in office during my lifetime.

As President, Donald Trump is one scary and dangerous person. He has to be removed from the office as soon as possible, before he scares Kim Jong-un into doing something really stupid, or fires up Putin into doing something way too aggressive. 

This multi-billionaire President and the billionaires in his cabinet are bringing us into an oligarchy that we are going to find very difficult to get out of.

Mark my words, the worst of Donald Trump is yet to come. We do not yet know how big a mistake we have made.

 
 
 
Petey Coober
Freshman Silent
link   Petey Coober  replied to  Jerry Verlinger   7 years ago

before he scares Kim Jong-un into doing something really stupid

Kim Jong-Un is fully capable of "doing something really stupid" all by himself w/o any prompting from Trump ...

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Petey Coober   7 years ago

Exactly. Trump's bluster is finally encouraging China to do something about Kim.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    7 years ago

Because the cabinet can be fired by the president, there is a natural bias that would make them reluctant to acknowledge the president’s inability to serve.

That's the point dummy. Involving the president's own cabinet appointees removes partisanship from the equation. If these people will risk their jobs to say that the president is crazy, then he might actually be crazy. 

Blumenauer has a zero chance of getting this bill through a republican congress or overcoming a veto. He should draft his bills on toilet paper so they will at least serve a useful alternative. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary    7 years ago

In related news, Representative Don Quixote (D-Calif) has not only voiced his support for this bill, but has vowed to hold his breath until it passes both houses and is signed into law.  The Congressman was unable to comment further, as he was starting to turn blue.......just another windmill....

Seriously, did they learn nothing from the whole 'Super-Majority' fiasco?  So, President Trump waits until his last day in office, then signs the bill into law, if his replacement is a Democrat, of course.  How stupid and short-sighted are these people?

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Spikegary   7 years ago

Very stupid and very short-sighted.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Spikegary   7 years ago

"How stupid and short-sighted are these people?"

 

Very.  How much more proof do you need?

 
 
 
Jerry Verlinger
Freshman Silent
link   Jerry Verlinger  replied to  Spikegary   7 years ago
So, President Trump waits until his last day in office, then signs the bill into law
It can't wait that long. 
The  veto  becomes effective when the  President  fails to sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the  veto . The authority of the pocket  veto  is derived from the  Constitution's  Article I, section 7, “the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case, it shall not be law.” Sep 29, 2016
Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives:
 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Jerry Verlinger   7 years ago

Says one of the shortsighted we speak of.  You would overturn the rules of democracy forever to get your way at the moment. Haven't you learned after the crap with Reid and, because of it,  the "nuclear option" with Gorsuch?  Do you not understand the power that is now in Trumps hands because of the actions of Obama you cheered?  When will you learn?

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Jerry Verlinger   7 years ago

So, working with the Congress and Senate, the bill doesn't get debated and voted on until the Republicans are good and ready (for examples of this, just read the history of Harry Reid as Senate majority Leader).  Do you really think that the Republicans will hesitate to use the rules of the game as the other side of the aisle did while they were in power?  Are you that naïve?

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Spikegary   7 years ago

"Are you that naïve?"

After reading his posts on the subject and his cheering of the destruction of democracy you still have to ask?  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur    7 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, I very much dislike deleting comments and do so very rarely; so please, for the good of the site, stop insulting one another and discuss the content of the article.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    7 years ago

It is stupid and short sighted.. but no more than the nuclear option that was done for SCOTUS. As we say in NY, What goes around comes around, and none of these people seem to see this. 

This time, if this passed, all it would take is a power hungry VP. How utterly dangerous and undemocratic. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

The Republicans probably wouldn't have invoked that option if Reid hadn't already used it so heavily.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters, which was on a huge upswing over the last 10 years. That is a far cry from using it for a SCOTUS position. It will come back and bite them in the butt eventually. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

Just as Reid's action are biting the Dems. They brought this on themselves.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Partisan Politics 101:

The republicans used the most filibusters ever during the Obama years, with a record 307, as compared to Bush, with 130 over both their 8 years. Literally that is 3 times the rate of the democrats. Reid then called for the nuclear option. That was just in the congress, and not for a lifetime position, and not exactly uncalled for given the outrageous number of republican filibusters. In return for that nuclear option, the republicans used it on a SCOTUS position. These are not equal. Also, this is after the fact that the republicans wouldn't even consider a hearing on Obama's pick. 

There will be payback for this. 

I have no dog in this fight. I agree that it is a very dangerous move for this piece of legislation to pass. But I am just pointing out how our congress is very short sighted and that it goes both ways. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

"In return for that nuclear option, the republicans used it on a SCOTUS position. These are not equal."

 

Regardless.   You know you are blaming those that USED the rule instead of the Dumb ass that MADE it right?  Sorry but the Dems brought this on on themselves.  Change the rules and only expect your side will take advantage of them?  Please.  That being said, sooner or later the Repubs will pay for the nuclear SCOTUS option just as the Dems have already paid for Reid's stupidity.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

Democrats were also bragging as late as October they would use the nuclear option if Republicans opposed President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.  

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Well you know that holds no weight with liberals.   What's OK for liberals is almost never OK for everyone else.   They play by a different set of rules.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

and not for a lifetime positio

Circuit court positions are life time positions. What are you talking about?

th a record 307, as compared to Bush, with 130 over both their 8 years

Those numbers are partisan bullshit. They count parliamentary moves by Reid as "filibusters."  On numerous occasions, I've posted the explanations for the fake numbers but people prefer their partisan talking points than actual facts, so I'm not going to bother.

By all means though, find a list of 307 nominees that at least  41 Republican Senators successfully kept from assuming office.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Sean,

and not for a lifetime positio

Circuit court positions are life time positions. What are you talking about?

I misspoke. A circuit judge isn't one of our checks and balances. Their importance is not on a par. 

Those numbers are partisan bullshit. 

First of all, I am not a dem so I am not being partisan, but you are. I am not going to bother producing a chart to show you that I am right, since you have made up your mind already. 

By all means though, find a list of 307 nominees that at least  41 Republican Senators successfully kept from assuming office.

What are you talking about? I am talking about straight up filibusters, not nominations. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

You used the  " lifetime position"   Argument, not me. Reid used  the nuclear option to appoint people to lifetime positions. That's indisputable.  And of course the Supreme Court is the most important of the appealte courts, that goes without saying.

you are relying on debunked partisan  talking points that arent relevant. Whether you consider yourself partisan or not, the talking points you are relying on certainly are. Read the congressional research services papers on the filibuster if you want actual facts.

of course the number of nominees filibustered by the republicans  is relevant. It's the only relevant number, since the nuclear option only applies to nominations.  If you believe your claim that Reid was justified in employing the nuclear option, you should be able to provide some proof of widespread successful filibustering of obama nominations.   

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

you are relying on debunked partisan  talking points that arent relevant. Whether you consider yourself partisan or not, the talking points you are relying on certainly are. Read the congressional research services papers on the filibuster if you want actual facts.

I have no idea what you are referring to here. I think we are having some sort of communication issue. So let me clarify. The republicans used a record number of filibusters during the Obama administration. That has nada to do with the nuclear option. I do know that Reid changed the rules and basically invented the nuclear option, which was a mistake.. But I looked all over the internet to see how many times Reid supposed used the nuclear option and I can only find two.. not the several you said in a later post. 

since their partisan filubstsr of gorsuch was unprecedented. 

So was not giving even allowing a hearing of Garland. 

of course the number of nominees filibustered by the republicans  is relevant. It's the only relevant number, since the nuclear option only applies to nominations.  If you believe your claim that Reid was justified in employing the nuclear option, you should be able to provide some proof of widespread successful filibuster of obama nominations.  

Sean, I was not just talking about nominations. I was talking about filibustering in general. One thing leads to another. Over filibustering, lead to frustration, which lead to the nuclear option, which was a big mistake. 

And now we are looking at another with this new bill. 

That was my point. 

 

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

If we're going to parse this out, then you should also include the number of Republican initiatives that Harry Reid would not let off his desk to even see the light of day.  Pretty much worse than a filibuster to not allow debate.  Need to factor all these things in to figure out how we got where we are today.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

Reid employed the nuclear option significantly  more than one time. 

Also, Reid and the democrats were the first party to ever use the filibuster as a partisan tactic against Judges.  The whole filibuster/nuclear escalation began when when Miguel Estrada was filibustered for the Circuit Court because Democrats feared Bush would get credit for nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.  

Using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court was the logical end of the game Harry Reid  started with the previously unprecedented use of the partisan filibuster of judges. 

Now we are back to the standard the Senate operated at before the  Harry Reid torched tradition, a majority of votes will get a nominee confirmed. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Reid employed the nuclear option significantly  more than one time. 

Please prove that. I did my research. He used it once during the Bush years and once during Obama's.

Also, Reid and the democrats were the first party to ever use the filibuster as a partisan tactic against Judges.  The whole filibuster/nuclear escalation began when when Miguel Estrada was filibustered for the Circuit Court because Democrats feared Bush would get credit for nominating the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.

And that is the one of them I am talking about. But give us a break Sean. The republicans set a record number of filibusters during the Obama years. Did they not think there would be a reaction to it. If you abuse a procedure, there is always a reaction. 

Using the nuclear option for the Supreme Court was the logical end of the game Harry Reid  started with the previously unprecedented use of the partisan filibuster of judges. 

I disagree. The nuclear option for one of the highest positions in the land, and not some circuit judge. It is setting a precedence for other SCOTUS positions. 

Now we are back to the standard the Senate operated at before the Harry Reid torched tradition, a majority of votes will get a nominee confirmed. 

How do you get that? The Republicans just did it for a SCOTUS position. They doubled downed on Harry Reid. 

I just don't understand how you can't see that. I can clearly see how what the dems are trying to do with this piece of legislation. You need to look past the partisan politics. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

 

I don't think you understand what the nuclear option is. Reid would never have deployed it during the bush years, unless he was trying to get a bush nominee confirmed. the nuclear option was a rule change that allowed the majority to approve a nomination and only a nomination with a simple majority of votes.  It goes without saying that Reid didn't change the senate rules under George bush to alllow bush nominees to avoid being filibustered.

again, look it up, Reid changed the rules to Get three nominations passed originally in Twenty thirteen. It was then used on numerous occasions  the next year before democrats lost control of the senate. So to say is was used once is simply false.

its amusing that you blame republicans for using a tactic Harry Reid invented.  What did Reid expect would happen? By your logic, democrats shouldn't be mad that McConnell wnet nuclear over the Supreme Court, since their partisan filubstsr of gorsuch was unprecedented. 

McConnell ended the filibuster fight started by Harry Reid with the first partisan filibusters of judges in senate history. . Reid started  the fight and he ultimately lost. Simple as that.

Also, it's a return to the status quo because Supreme Court justices were always able to be confirmed by a simple majority vote, before democrats started employing the partisan filibuster under Reid. The democrats abused the filibuster, it was taken away, and now we are back where the senate was for over two hundred years, where a majority of support was enough for a Supreme Court confirmation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
link   TTGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters

And McConnell used it once, to stop a filibuster.  Reid should have known (in fact, Carl Levin D-Mi came right out and told him) that, once part of the filibuster rule is gone, the ice is broken and it's all gone.  There was never a chance that it would stay in place after 2013.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

TTGA, 

I am not saying that isn't true. But you are missing the issue of the abuse of the filibusters in the first place. But yes, now the barn door is open. In my opinion, the blame is on both of them; the republicans for over using filibusters and the dems for using the nuclear option. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

Democrats were also bragging as late as October they would use the nuclear option if Republicans opposed President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.  

Well you know that holds no weight with liberals.   What's OK for liberals is almost never OK for everyone else.   They play by a different set of rules.

Well hold on there guys. First of bragging about using it and using it are two different things. And for the record, I thought what the republicans did to Garland was the pits. He had every right to a hearing. 

As for liberals, are you saying democrats or liberals? They are different you know. And I think both sides play dirty politics, hence why our country has moved to these more radical measures. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

Yea he wouldn't even listen to another Democrat!

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

They certainly wouldn't have used it had the Dems not changed the laws.  PERIOD!!!!!

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

I agree Perrie the nuclear option on SCOTUS was as short sighted as Reed doing the same for appointees,

Reid used it once, to stop filibusters, which was on a huge upswing over the last 10 years. That is a far cry from using it for a SCOTUS position. It will come back and bite them in the butt eventually.

Not to be outdone, now the Dems want to be able to choose your president for you.  Evidently picking the Democratic candidate for you is not enough

 

Pure INSANITY

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

Thank you '96! I think this business with removing a seated president is beyond dangerous. This is a precedent that could be so abused that it could undermine the republic. How utterly short sighted. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   seeder  96WS6  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

And yet there are foolish partizan hacks cheering it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  96WS6   7 years ago

Oh I know. 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy    7 years ago

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed a bill during the two-week April break that would let the vice president and former presidents collaborate to decide if a president is fit for office

Goes a bit too far. I'm happy with letting the VP and members of the Cabinet or Congress under Section 4 of the 25th keep their place in deciding if Trump is bat shit crazy (he's really not that crazy, just incredibly incompetent and in waaaaaaaay over his head) and needs to be removed from office. Now I don't think he's fit for office on that basis, but that won't be shown until he bumbles us into a war just by a complete fuck up on his own. Which he will.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

The real question is will VP Pence, the Cabinet and especially the GOP Congress act invoke the 25th Amendment in America's best interests or will they, as they are now and have been so far, let scandal after scandal and failure after failure and foreign policy screw up after foreign policy screw up continue, just because they have a pliable, though massively corrupt person sitting in the Oval Office, who is so intertwined with the Russians that it is impossible to tell where Trump leaves off and Putin begins, before they act to remove this incredibly defective, obviously defective and even dangerous national security risk? Trump is getting close to being proved to be nothing less then a Russian asset. The question is not that. The question is how many Republicans in the House and Senate will put their Party desires over who they are and what they believe in as patriotic Americans. In other words, are they Americans first? Or are they Republicans first and thereby willing to lean Russian first? Only they can answer this question that holds our nations future in the balance.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

We will not fundamentally undermine the office of the president based solely on Russian birtherism from the lunatic fringe.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

You should remove names from your thoughts and just use the offices.  Is it a good idea, regardless of who is in that office, for the President, duly elected by the citizens of the United States to be removed by the VP, Cabinet and ex-Presidents?  In most places, that would be called a coup.

Let me ask, if a Republican had fielded legislation akin to this when Presdient Obama was in office, would you be climbing onboard this particular train?

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Spikegary   7 years ago

In most places, that would be called a coup.

In the United States of America it called Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It has to be there to remove a President who can no longer perform the duties of their office for either physical or mental reasons. We can not have a President who is so physically disabled (such as a coma) or obviously Mad (insane) or even dangerously incompetent, running the country and this clause must remain in force. I don't agree at all with the new proposed bill, but I am a HUGH advocate for Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it's meaning and if necessary it's use. No matter the political party of the President.

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser    7 years ago

Personally, I think it is going to come back and bite them.  NOT a good idea.

 
 

Who is online

Krishna
Veronica
CB
Sparty On
Kavika


85 visitors