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.
“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.
.
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