Posted on 04/12/2011 11:12:10 AM PDT by American Dream 246
The innocent till proven guilty is not immediately at issue since this is not yet a criminal issue but a qualification issue which must abide by court orders.
Not that I would not expect Urkel’s minions would try it.
While the constitution does not directly address the possibility of a fraudulent elevation to the presidency, the fact remains that there is no prescription for removing a president or pseudo-president from office outside of impeachment.
There is no constitutional authority for voiding and election nor declaring the president (after assuming office) to be illegitimate.
Your car analogy is not quite appropriate. The constitution is not a detailed description of government but merely the basis of the laws, a framework. For your example to work one would have to find an actual federal law for removing an illegitimate president through means other than the impeachment process.
For your example to work one would have to find an actual federal law for removing an illegitimate president through means other than the impeachment process.
So he can still be President from GITMO?
I don’t think that your legal reference is accurate. After a Senator takes office there is nothing which can remove him during the term except the action of the Senate itself. Certainly no District of Columbia code (nor state laws, either) has ANY control over the federal government .
Nor is there anything in the Constitution that the Congress has any power to void an election per se. Each house can remove a sitting member or refuse to accept a newly elected one. After it has accepted the electoral college’s vote for President and VP it cannot nullify the election except through impeachment.
No it wouldn't...no more than one would "need" to find instructions for removing the jerry-rigged headlight. It's an unique circumstance and would have to be handled as such.
While I do consider him an enemy combatant he would not wind up at Club Gitmo but an ordinary federal pen. Even though the RATs would PROBABLY stop defending him after a fraud conviction they might not.
One of their earliest stalwart, Matt Ryan, actually campaigned from prison AND WON re-election to the House back in the 1790s so there is precedent.
Political issues must be handled within the constitutional framework and I see no methods which would not be impossible given the political realities.
Lets say the USSC declared him to be no longer president, what makes you think that he would not pull an Andrew Jackson and say “the court has made its ruling, let it enforce it” as he did over Cherokee removal? Plus he would have the constitution to back his contention that his removal was illegal.
Or can you conceive of the Democrats allowing any bill to be passed giving Congress the power to void and election? They have control of the Senate. Plus, Urkel would have to sign the law.
No matter how you cut it there is no alternative to impeachment.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides an alternate possibility, and I could possibly see where the BC issue (among others) could lead the dems to the point where Obie was such a political embarrasment/liability that Biden would be willing to sign off on the 'bamster's incapacity. That would also be bolstered by a lingering indictment under any number of charges under Title 18 USC, Pt. 1, Ch. 115.
Impeachment would be an afterthought and a mere formality.
Not really, the 25th is intended for physical or mental incapacity. It is not applicable to ineligibility. And the chance of his cabinet invoking the amendment mechanism (as I understand it) is less than the Senate convicting after impeachment.
Besides he could always pull a Nixon and fire those considering invoking the 25th and replace them with acting toadies subject to his will.
"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, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
That is what the “unable to discharge” means as well as it not being intended for removal from office. It is intended to be a temporary elevation of the VP since it speaks of the president “resuming” his office when the “inability” to perform his office is removed upon his petition to be reinstated.
I realize that some are assuming his ineligibility would constitute and “inability” but don’t believe that was the intent of the amendment. Recall that it was passed after we had seen a president killed in office, President Kennedy, and people realized that there would have been a gigantic problem had he been seriously incapacitated rather than killed.
But even pretending that this amendment could be used it still runs aground on the same rock, a Democrat controlled Senate.
Unable to discharge is not merely contingent on physical or mental incapacity. It is left entirely to the judgment of the VP and other Executive Dep't officials to exercise their discretion as to the POTUS's ability to exercise his duties. Their discretion can range from political viability, incompetence, mental or physical incapacity, or wardrobe selection if they deem the reason adequate.
"It is intended to be a temporary elevation of the VP since it speaks of the president “resuming” his office when the “inability” to perform his office is removed upon his petition to be reinstated."
There are provisions for it to be extended indefinitely with the concurrence of congress regardless of how many times the POTUS re-submits his petitions.
"...it still runs aground on the same rock, a Democrat controlled Senate."
If the NBC issue got enough traction to become a political albatross around the whole DNC, you can bet the dems would do whatever was politically expedient in damage control mode. An impeachment trial just might expose the extent of the fraud and the names of the co-conspirators, which the DNC would want to avoid.
There was no intention that a president be removable for lack of political viability, or sartorial criminality. Merely mental or physical incapacity. As I pointed out the amendment followed JFK’s killing. There was no intention that it could be used as a coup mechanism. Nor does it say it can replace the president on any but a temporary basis. In no way is this a replacement for impeachment.
Eisenhower’s illnesses had Nixon serve as President but this was only because of an agreement between the men. The amendment made this the official method. GHW Bush also served as Acting President while Reagan was recovering from surgery.
There were two primary plans and much language batted about during the formulation of the 25th, and yes, concerns of political leveraging were taken into consideration; however, the settled upon language quite deliberately avoided limiting it to "mental or physical" incapacitation. If those were the only criteria, the evaluation of the president's ability to perform his duties would have been better left to a medical professional (i.e. the Surgeon General or POTUS's personal physician) for an impairment rating rather than being vested in the VP and other Executive department officials who were ultimately making a political judgment.
"As I pointed out the amendment followed JFK’s killing. There was no intention that it could be used as a coup mechanism."
Section 1 deals directly with the assumption of the presidency by the VP in case of removal (i.e. impeachment & conviction), death or resignation of a POTUS. Clearly this was all the consideration that needed to be taken in light of the Kennedy assasination. The real driving force behind the amendment was primarily Wilson's stroke, in which the first lady effectively (if not illegitimately) exercised many executive powers...clearly something most considered to be beyond the pale.
Section 4 (the longest and most detailed section of the amendment) deals specifically with the VP assuming the powers of the presidency for circumstances other than removal, death or resignation. If you read the section carefully, you can see that, with the concurrence of congress, a sitting POTUS can be deemed incapacitated indefinitely (or at least until the next election).
Of course it's not a replacement or substitution for impeachment...what happens in the case of impeachment is clearly outlined in Section 1. Section 4 outlines the remedy for special cases other than impeachment.
It is not there for removal on any political basis. As you note the Congress (or a BODY it creates) could make the decision keep rejecting any plea for resumption of the suspended power. But the whole idea of temporary suspensions argues that it is not designed for any but mental or physical incapacity and of course the Junta would use evaluations of medical personnel to make those decisions.
Wilson’s case was an excellent example of the need for such an amendment. And we had had 16 periods without VP.
But the mechanism makes it even more unlikely to be used for political reasons than straight impeachment since you have an extra layer introduced (cabinet plotting). It is not designed or possible for any controversial issues.
I'm willing to believe you...just point out the section of the amendment that forbids or precludes it being used for such and I will :-)
Oh yeah - that was my point - that the o-coms will play that card at the earliest opportunity, even though it makes no sense and has no application.
I already did. The fact that reinstatement of a president is possible means it is designed for temporary incapacity.
And it never states that it is designed for permanent removal.
Now it is clear to me that Congress would never try using it rather than the impeachment procedure because it would give the President an obvious argument against any removal.
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.