Trump Thread

[drone]

Anonymous White House "senior official" publishes op-ed describing "heroic" collective sub-rosa effort in the executive branch to neutralize Trump's derangement and malice by misdirecting and subverting his will.

They considered engaging the 25th Amendment provisions at some point(s) but have decided that they don't want a "constitutional crisis" on their hands.

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis", it's in the Constitution. They just know they wouldn't get the 2/3rds vote from Congress when Trump objects.

As for the rest, it's establishment Republicans trying to do damage control and riding it out while getting as much through before the inevitable collapse. Once the Democrats get subpoena power, the resulting scandals and convictions could very well end the GOP as a party.

[Xiahou]

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis", it's in the Constitution. They just know they wouldn't get the 2/3rds vote from Congress when Trump objects.

The 25th amendment option is a fantasy on multiple levels...
First, as you say, it ultimately would fall to Congress to decide and they would never declare him incapacitated.
Second, on the merits, it's difficult to rationalize in what way he's incapacitated. Like him or not, his fitness is in no way different that what it was when he was elected by the people. He's not incapacitated. Declaring him incapacitated would be overturning an election, nothing less.
Third, removing Trump would leave Pence as President. I'd view this as an improvement- but it would satisfy few of Trump's detractors. Aside from Trump's verbal diarrhea, little would be likely to change (policy-wise certainly) under President Pence.

[Montmorency]

As mentioned much earlier in the thread, the 25th Amendment is more difficult to engage than the impeachment process. You need 2/3 of both chambers, while impeachment requires 2/3 only of the Senate (with the simple majority of the House).

If, as established, even impeachment is impossible this term... one reason the 25th Amendment was mooted only early on may be that it took little time to realize that no Republican Congressperson would ever vote against their President.

More importantly, they have different purposes. Impeachment reflects personal and chronic culpability in some way, while the 25th reflects an episodic or unanticipated change in status.


The office-holder is a criminal tinpot idiot piece of with probable intellectual, emotional, and personality deficits? Impeachment.

The office-holder looked upon the Mountains of Madness from Air Force One and can't stop screaming? 25th Amendment.

Even if by some stretch the 25th Amendment criteria ("unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office") could arguably have been met from the outset, there is no scenario in which it is either preferred or available over impeachment in the case of Trump.


@Xiahou - Pence was elected on the same ticket as Trump, so in no way could the application of any Constitutional process of removal be construed to "overturn" the results of an election. If Pence is proved dirty in his own right, well, that's called a healthy immune response.

[a completely inoffensive name]

25th Amendment is supposed to be used for times such as when Reagan was shot. It just codifies what was already practiced. The president is 'OOO' and we are letting you know the Vice President is in charge now.

Although personally I don't see why it can't be applied here. You are losing sight of the big picture if you believe that incapacitated is defined by the disability of motor functions.

An entire cabinet and the VP rebelling against their President is a big enough act that Congress cannot blindly support POTUS as the act itself shows the extreme lack of trust in the individual which would completely undermine the public's trust in the administration. The average citizen won't be swayed by Paul "it's just politics, support your president" Ryan. It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, but certainly a crisis of confidence with blowback.

Think of a theoretical Presidential "madman" who (while fully cognizant) blindly wants to start launching nukes in a first strike to trigger a nuclear apocalypse when there is no clear external threat posing the country. I don't think anyone can argue that pointless nuclear self-destruction has been or ever will be the 'will of the people'. Election be damned, the cabinet should invoke the 25th when humanity (as we know it) is on the line. So with the extreme case illustrated, the argument shouldn't be "the 25th can't be applied to these types of cases" the argument what is the line that we will draw for these types of cases and have we gone over that line.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Section 4, which is the only one wherein the President may be declared incapable without her consent, would require the VP and a majority of the cabinet to accede to the President being defined as incapable of executing the office and submitting this declaration to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The sitting President would then, in all likelihood, respond that such a declaration was inaccurate, whereupon Congress, by 2/3 vote in both houses, would have to support the declaration of incapacity in order to relieve the President from executive function as President.

This clause was put in, more or less, to prevent a repeat of the Edith Wilson scenario (It has been alleged that Wilson did far more than act as a de-facto White House Chief of Staff during some phases of Wilson's post-stroke recovery and that she was actively making decisions for a President who was not functional).

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

So where is this line?

[Montmorency]

25th Amendment is supposed to be used for times such as when Reagan was shot. It just codifies what was already practiced. The president is 'OOO' and we are letting you know the Vice President is in charge now.

Although personally I don't see why it can't be applied here. You are losing sight of the big picture if you believe that incapacitated is defined by the disability of motor functions.

An entire cabinet and the VP rebelling against their President is a big enough act that Congress cannot blindly support POTUS as the act itself shows the extreme lack of trust in the individual which would completely undermine the public's trust in the administration. The average citizen won't be swayed by Paul "it's just politics, support your president" Ryan. It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, but certainly a crisis of confidence with blowback.

Think of a theoretical Presidential "madman" who (while fully cognizant) blindly wants to start launching nukes in a first strike to trigger a nuclear apocalypse when there is no clear external threat posing the country. I don't think anyone can argue that pointless nuclear self-destruction has been or ever will be the 'will of the people'. Election be damned, the cabinet should invoke the 25th when humanity (as we know it) is on the line. So with the extreme case illustrated, the argument shouldn't be "the 25th can't be applied to these types of cases" the argument what is the line that we will draw for these types of cases and have we gone over that line.

That's exactly what impeachment is for. In abstract. The united front of the Cabinet and VP would be a kick in the ass to get Congress moving on impeachment.

If Trump nuked Cincinnati tomorrow for "no reason", that would be facially impeachable. (Well, at that point maybe other things should be done, but we can't discuss those.)

Even from a purely consequentialist perspective, impeachment is always easier than 25th Amendment, so you always go with impeachment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So where is this line?

That's the whole issue, really. I think a President who had a severe stroke but refused to invoke the 25th during rehabilitation would have it invoked for her. Clear and obvious signs of mental illness would get treated the same.

Yet anything short of the blatantly obvious would be arguable, and a 2/3 in both houses is NOT easily or frequently achieved if the issue is at all contentious.