My point was that this bill still had the imprimatur of the 25th amendment behind it, so it wasn't some far-out whacky idea.
If there were a "whacky" component to it, it would be using prior Presidents as the basis for this other "25th-amendment group." I think a more reasonable group would be an assembly of all 50 governors, or a majority (or super?) vote from all 50 state legislatures. At least this way, the "other such group" would still be accountable to the people.
-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.