What's the point of having the 25th Amendment when it's not being used for what it was intended for?

[Snake Plissken]

There is nobody who can honestly say Trump is fit for office.

[unblock]

1. it was not intended to remove someone like donnie.

it was meant to remove someone like woodrow wilson, who had suffered a severe stroke.

it was meant to remove someone in a coma.

it was *not* meant to remove someone who was horrible, evil, or incompetent.

the *impeachment* process was designed for that.


note that removal via the 25th amendment is *much* harder than removal via impeachment which only requires and majority in the house and 2/3rds of the senate.

the 25th requires the same 2/3rds in the senate but also 2/3rds in the house *and* the vice-president *and* a majority of the cabinet.


it was not meant for removing anyone with even a smattering of support. it was meant for removing someone virtually everyone agreed wasn't fit for the office.


i'd love to see donnie impeached and removed, but even that isn't going to happen. he's not going to get removed via the 25th, unless he has a clearly mentally debilitating stroke or coma.

[SCantiGOP]

7. Thank you, unblock

It’s becoming rare here to see someone actually know what they are talking about and present it well.

[LiberalArkie]

9. It basically gets down to his Hair Force 1 pilots

[Hortensis]

11. Exactly. One of the authors of the 25th is still around,

and he pointed out that the 25th was not meant for this situation. He went on to point out that Trump IS what the people elected. All his dysfunctions and potential for evil were on display, and voters apparently considered him fit for the presidency.

[unblock]

12. Well i wouldn't go that far as I don't think we have fair elections

A sufficient minority of people, manipulated by, among other things, foreign money and espionage, from the subset of Americans who were allowed to register and vote, chose Donnie.

But in any event yeah, the 25th was not designed to fix this particular problem.

[Hortensis]

13. Have to take the "fairness" up with him. He was speaking

of this situation, unfairness and tricks notwithstanding. You know, 38% of the electorate didn't vote. They were instrumental in putting the winner of the minority vote in office, not just those who voted directly for him.

[unblock]

14. I don't have a problem with people choosing not to vote.

Of course I'd prefer less apathy, but in terms of electoral fairness and legitimacy, "no opinion" or even "don't care enough to bother to cast a ballot" is a perfectly legitimate thing to choose to do with your right to vote.

What I have a problem with is things like black people denied the right to vote because of a crack possession felony 25 years ago while a white person is allowed to vote because their crime involved cocaine, or registration roll purges based on ethnic-sounding names, or any of the many other ways the government chooses who votes and who doesn't vote.

[Hortensis]

15. Not voting IS a choice, but it is a choice with consequences.

Tragically including the very ones you pointed out. Those vicious misapplications of law could only happen because people who like to think they're good failed to stop it.

Political power is not created by the vote, it is directed by the vote. Someone will get that power.

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.

Those who don't vote fail to stand up and be counted every time, even though that would have cost them nothing but a few minutes every couple of years.

How many times can a good person do nothing before he or she's no longer a good person?

[LBM20]

17. Forget pie in the sky like impeachment or 25th amendment. Go vote, take the House, & SHUT HIM DOWN.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Because it's primary point is clarifying Presidential succession, not...

Presidential removal.

It is actually more difficult to remove a President using the 25th than it is to impeach one. Since "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not defined, Congress can define them as they wish.

[jberryhill]

3. What is your source of information about "what it was intended for"

The first clue about "what it was intended for" should be the date that it was enacted:

The Twenty-fifth Amendment was submitted to the states on July 6, 1965, by the 89th Congress and was adopted on February 10, 1967.

In 1965, we had recently had a president shot in the head, and had also recently implemented presidential authority to launch nukes. So the question of "what if he wasn't killed but severely incapacitated" was one in need of an answer.

[elocs]

4. You need to study what the 25th Amendment is really about. It really doesn't take much time.

The removal of Trump via the 25th Amendment is just a fantasy of the Left.
All Trump has to do is say "no, I'm not going" and it will take a 2/3 vote of not just the Senate, but the House as well. In what alternate reality does that ever happen?

[Buckeyeblue]

5. Agreed

What if Kennedy had not died but just been in a coma. He can't resign. Who runs the country? The vote on the 25th amendment is really meant to be a no brainer (no pun intended).

[MyOwnPeace]

6. Cliff Notes:

There is more than one-third of the country happy to have someone crazy as a loon living in the White House.

[flotsam]

8. The 25th was to handle one defective unit

Not one defective party.

[anarch]

10. I guess it could come into play if there were clearly evident dementia

like what happened with Reagan, but more publicly, and to the point that he was obviously hallucinating and such. Problem with that idea is, with this clown it would be hard to tell the difference from whatever "baseline" he was at when he was installed into the office.

[pnwmom]

16. It was intended, for example, for someone who had a heart attack and was in a coma.

In that case the Cabinet would invoke the 25th and even the GOP would join in confirming it.

Remember when John Kennedy was shot? That's when they realized they needed to have a provision in case a President was suddenly severely disabled.