Posted on 04/18/2017 3:47:53 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
....Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed the bill during the House's two-week April recess to empower former presidents and vice presidents of both parties, in coordination with the sitting vice president, to determine if a president is fit for office.
“It is hard to imagine a better group to work with the...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I read it as saying the VP AND the majority of either the executive branch principals or the congressionally created group must sign.I don’t think Pence would sign.
The 25th amendment says "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...
That means that Congress has to pass a bill that creates this "body," and then that bill must be signed by the President to become law. If the President vetoes the bill, then Congress can override the veto to make it law.
Once it becomes law, then that "body" can support the Vice-President in removing an incapacitated President under the 25th amendment.
-PJ
There are two ways to remove a president now.
They are both focused on cause.
One is for being physically unable to perform the duties.
One is for having committed crimes, making the person unfit.
Whether it is past presidents or sitting governors, this enters a new type of cause unless it is defined differently, and why add a new way to achieve what we already have on the books?
Past presidents and sitting governors would be able to remove a president for political reasons. Hey, I don’t like the guy. Hey, he’s implementing too many of the plans of the Left/Right.
At the present time, the past president plan would serve the Left.
At the present time, the sitting governors plan would serve the Right.
I don’t think either is appropriate.
We have a method that covers both incapacity and corruption/crime.
I think the idea we need a political option, is very ill advised.
Over half the voters having selected the president and his policies, they are the final arbiter of the political, for better or worse.
BTW: Sorry for the elevated emphasis on “stunt”.
It wasn’t as big a deal to me as I made it look like to others.
“Past presidents and sitting governors would be able to remove a president for political reasons. Hey, I don’t like the guy. Hey, he’s implementing too many of the plans of the Left/Right.”
—
My God,I did not know this.
.
Mears, this is the way I read the loosely described proposal.
If others can point to a reason why I misconstrued the suggestion, I don’t mind being proven wrong.
It doesn’t make sense to me to have past presidents or sitting governors step in, if the terms are the same as what we have now. That’s why it would seem their criteria would be different.
Thanks for the response.
If that is the case why on earth would we bother voting?
I certainly understand the “crimes and misdemeanors” reason,but political reasons?
God help us.
.
There is a "loophole," if you will, in the 25th amendment that allows a unique "body as Congress may by law provide..."
This bill is about defining that body, but it still is within the two methods that you cited for removing a sitting President. It's just that this "body" has not been defined "by law" yet.
I think of it as being similar to the two Article V methods for proposing amendments. We've done it the Congressional way previously, but there is also the Convention of States way to propose amendments. With the 25th amendment, there is the Vice-President plus Cabinet way, but also the Vice-President plus "such other body as Congress may by law provide" way.
But first, Congress must "by law" define that "other such body." That's what this bill tries to do, albeit with a flawed body.
-PJ
Thanks. My thoughts exactly.
Thank you for making that point.
One thing that really bothers me about Congress is it’s ability to shift the buck.
Instead of doing their duty, they set up some sham investigation or committee to look at things, which will never turn into anything tangible.
Here they have the ability to defer their job on yet another issue.
If anyone thinks our past presidents would conform to the law, I think they’re sadly mistaken.
Bill Clinton and Obama committed acts that could be seen as treason. That doesn’t convince me they’d stick to the law now, or at a future date.
If anything, this loophole you’ve pointed out should be eliminated.
I can't imagine, in today's partisan climate, how such a law would ever get passed. I can image a future Democrat Congress-President trying to create a partisan body just in case a future "Trump" should win again.
-PJ
I can imagine that too. That’s why I suggest it be removed.
I agree with the process you describe.
Democrats use the law to do the most dastardly things.
You can’t/shouldn’t leave them an opening.
This is debatable, so I’m not opposed to alternate views.
I understand your take on it.
Then Republicans can create a body that would have such a high bar as to be effectively non-useful. That's why I suggested a conference of all 50 governors, or resolutions from all 50 state legislatures. On the surface, those bodies seem reasonable and representative of the people (small "r" republican). In practicality, it would be very hard to get such a body to succumb to partisan antics to remove a President that 270 electoral votes had recently put in place.
-PJ
I can understand your reasoning here also.
The only problem I see with it is guys like Lot/McConnell and Boehner/Ryan in the mix.
Then there’s the GOPe, willing accomplices in the worst decision making on Capital Hill.
Our side is no more safe than their side with an idea like this. Let’s recall that they all hate Trump.
I don’t want our side setting up an alternate group to judge him. It’s not very hard to imagine them claiming it was a bi-partisan group made up from both parties, that they somehow knew hated Trump.
Imagine McCain, Graham, Rubio, Snow...
Then imagine the Left: Feinstein, Schumer...
They could come up with 30 people, that would want Trump dangling on a short rope from a high limb.
Don’t put it past them.
The natural state of people demand a dictator.
“The natural state of people demand a dictator.”
True. The natural state of people is also to be dissatisfied with any leader once in office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.