Posted on 09/05/2018 3:06:23 PM PDT by SMGFan
Chatter about the 25th Amendment has ramped up again on Wednesday after a senior official in President Donald Trump's administration authored an anonymous New York Times op-ed in which they wrote that colleagues have discussed it.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Commie libs have been calling Conservatives crazy for what, 30 years now..back with Reagan, he was crazy too remove him from office they said..you can’t remove someone from office because you disagree with their agenda..this is a common leftist tactic
You mean the removal process under the 25th amendment doesn’t work the same way as it did on the ‘24’ series? /deranged liberals
Anonymous sources say that an anonymous source said.
Yeah, right.
If this turns out to be NOT a White House official,
then they need to be prosecuted for impersonating
a Federal Official.
The "fatal flaw" described in this article is not a flaw at all. It's a feature of the 25th Amendment. Removing a sitting President under the terms of the 25th Amendment is more difficult than simply impeaching him in a House vote and removing him through a Senate trial.
The 25th Amendment is not intended to apply to a situation where a President is removed against his will. It's intended for a situation where the President is incapacitated, cannot discharge his duties, and cannot transmit to Congress his written declaration that no incapacity exists.
In other words, the 25th Amendment addresses a case where a President is unconscious, abducted, or out of contact unexpectedly for some other reason.
At that point, it takes a 2/3 majority of BOTH houses to remove him, which is a higher bar than impeachment.
Couldn’t resist taking a dig at the president in the last sentence.
That is the ingrained partisan bias that is so pervasive and flows so naturally from the mainstream media that they don’t even see it for what it is.
Top everywhere, not just Twitter. I think the soft coup happened November 22, 1963. Trump is allowed to change some things domestically, but not foreign policy wise.
We’ve already seen it.
So we’re back to the 25th Amendment gambit, are we?
Everybody talks about the 25th Amendment but nobody does anything about it.
It’s nonsense.
Empty rhetoric and idle chat.
Yet the supposed best newspaper prints it.
They’re idiots.
Those who know better are the amoral ones.
When I was teaching US Constitution to my 7th graders, I showed the 25th as the ‘Oh my God’ Amendment. Before the Atomic Age, very little could happen to the US that would require a President’s immediate attention. Wilson had a debilitating stroke and the country chugged along. But in the 50s, Eisenhower had a string of heart attacks and in ‘63 Kennedy was shot in the head. Of course he died within hours, but what if he had survived as a ‘vegetable’. Who could take over? JFK couldn’t resign, impeachment is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. The 25th provided a mechanism to replace a disabled President. Not a President you merely dislike.
Fake news and no one ion the Admin wrote it, they are trying to have their own Q model and watch for more of this used toilet paper to come forth
If you read the Times in my opinion your brain died long ago
The op-ed and Woodward book are talking about the same thing so it’s just another pile of crap
Folks, this is why voting in the mid terms is so important. The Left and their media accomplices push innuendo, make up negative things and out right lie. They have zero ethics and only believe in the Constitution when they think it supports what they want — even though they are typically misunderstanding the Constitution. This country will not survive another Pelosi and Schumer led Congress.
Bookmark
Between you and me...I think it was Omarosa.
And then there is the Haig way Btw he did good that dark afternoon
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.