To: scouter
The 25th Amendment was never designed for the removal of a president against his will due to incompetence or incapacity. It is designed to be used in the event of a medical emergency or wartime scenario where the president is temporarily incapacitated or out of contact.
5 posted on
06/30/2024 4:04:44 PM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(“Ain't it funny how the night moves … when you just don't seem to have as much to lose.”)
To: Alberta's Child
In addition—though the OP does not want to talk about it—the 25th amendment had a hidden assumption of at least minimal competence and organizational skills of the VP since as a practical matter they would be driving the entire process.
8 posted on
06/30/2024 4:08:55 PM PDT by
cgbg
("Our democracy" = Their Kleptocracy)
To: Alberta's Child
On the contrary, Section 4 was designed precisely for that purpose. In fact, it is purposefully ambiguous by not specifying any medical, legal, or even political criteria for determining he is unable to discharge his powers and duties.
9 posted on
06/30/2024 4:11:57 PM PDT by
scouter
(As for me and my household... We will serve the LORD.)
To: Alberta's Child
The 25th Amendment was never designed for the removal of a president against his will due to incompetence or incapacity.
The 25th Amendment was written for exactly that purpose: to remove a president against his will for incompetence or incapacity. This is why the 25th Amendment set the bar so high for a president's removal (two-thirds of both the House and Senate must approve).
The 25th Amendment was passed, in part, because of Woodrow Wilson's stroke, which left him totally incapacitated for the last two years of his second term.
To: Alberta's Child
So that would mean it could be used between 4pm and 10 am
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson