And about the 25th Amendment - By Jennifer Rubin

[DonViejo]

By Jennifer Rubin December 7 at 9:00 AM

On Tuesday, freshman Rep. Jamie D. Raskin (D-Md.) wrote a “Dear Colleagues” letter seeking support for a bill that has approximately 50 co-sponsors. The letter, provided to Right Turn, explains:

Please join a rapidly growing group of colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 1987, the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act. It sets up and defines the Congressionally-appointed “body” called for by the 25th Amendment.

Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, the Vice-President and a majority of the Cabinet or the Vice-President and a majority of “such other body as Congress may by law provide” can determine that the President is—for reasons of physical or mental incapacity—“unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1967, but in the last 50 years Congress never created the “body” that its language contemplated. Perhaps it never occurred to prior Congresses that setting up this body was necessary. For obvious reasons, it is indeed necessary, and now is the time for us to do it.

The bill suggests a “panel of elder statespersons (former Presidents, Vice Presidents, or various cabinet members), physicians, and psychiatrists selected in a bipartisan manner by Congressional Leadership. The body will then select an eleventh member as the Chair.”

An independent commission of the type set forth in the proposed legislation — one not selected by the president, as his Cabinet is, and not able to be fired before it can determine incapacity — has a degree of independence the country should want when considering a matter as serious as removal. Moreover, the bill sets up a procedure whereby a concurrent resolution can trigger “an examination of the President to determine whether the President is incapacitated, either mentally or physically.” Congress couldn’t of course force the president to comply, but his refusal could “be taken into consideration by the Commission.” While a majority of the commission and the vice president pursuant to Section 4 of the Amendment would be needed to replace the president with the vice president as “acting president.” If the president disputes his removal, a vote by two-thirds of both the House and Senate would be needed to keep the vice president as acting president.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/12/06/and-about-the-25th-amendment/?utm_term=.445bf2a3ab00

[FBaggins]

1. Impeachment is easier than any 25th Amendment option

Rather than a simple majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate... removing him through the 25th required 2/3 majority of both houses.

[Lurks Often]

2. The bill isn't going to pass and maybe it shouldn't

Any law or legal precedent used to take down Trump or any other Republican president can also be used to take down the next Democratic president.