No, Desperate Dems, You Can’t Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Donald Trump
No, Desperate Dems, You Can’t Use the 25th Amendment to Remove Donald Trump
The Left, with the assistance of many in the media and a handful of Republicans, have relentlessly protested Everything Donald Trump since just moments after he won the election last November, a win that few saw coming. Most of the grievances are made-up at best, and full-blown slander at worst. And the protesters are not just random people waving professionally-printed signs, blocking traffic, and screaming in the faces of anyone with whom they disagree; they include legions of Democrat representatives. So what’s their latest scheme? Why, using the 25th Amendment to the very Constitution they’ve spent the past eight years running through a shredder. In lieu of impeachment, which is simply not gonna happen, Democrat reps are looking to paint Donald Trump as unstable, and therefore unsuitable to keep the office he now holds. From Instapundit:
So now, there is increasing discussion of the 25th Amendment. The 1967 amendment, which has its roots in the Kennedy assassination, covers ways to replace an incapacitated president. Up until now, its most-discussed provision was a measure by which the president could inform the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that he, the president, can no longer perform the duties of office, whereupon those two officials would declare the vice president the acting president, until such time as the president informed them that he was again able to perform his duties. The amendment has been used or considered for cases in which the president underwent surgery or was under anesthesia.
Now, however, The Resistance is looking at Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which would allow the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers, or the vice president and a majority “of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” to declare the president unable to serve, making the vice president the acting president.
Behold the brilliance of Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier:
SPEIER: “I think that we have got to be very careful. He needs to start acting presidential. He needs to start recognizing that as president you don’t go around and shoot down the media as if it’s, you know, some kind of a game you’re playing. You don’t take on people saying nasty things about them. You don’t take foreign leaders and hang up the phone with them or besmirch them as he has with some of the European leaders. He has got to get a grip. So the 25th Amendment is there if a president becomes incapacitated. Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated, his wife actually was the president in waiting for most of the end of his term. Certainly Eleanor Roosevelt played a role. I don’t believe that Melania Trump is in a position to do that but certainly —”
deprived of strength or power; debilitated: Richard was temporarily incapacitated.
I don’t know about you, but Donald Trump has more energy than I do on my best day, and far more than any president in recent memory. Incapacitated? Yeah, no. And never mind that the examples Speier gives are fact-challenged. Trump is crazy! Because I say so! I suggest we ask Rep. Speier where she earned her psychology degree.
These are the same people, mind you, to whom we pay six figures to work on our behalf. And this is what they’ve spent the last four-plus weeks doing instead of confirming Trump’s cabinet picks, or getting rid of that craptastic healthcare law that’s hurt so many of us. Not to mention not holding the previous POTUS accountable for, oh, ANYTHING.
So. Here’s the twenty-one-trillion-dollar question: Can a sitting president be removed from office via the 25th Amendment? In a word: nope. As explained by FrontPage Magazine:
The 25th Amendment was adopted after the JFK assassination to allow for an orderly transfer of power. It is not an impeachment shortcut. It addresses disability. It’s not meant as a mechanism for a coup.
Here’s the full text of the 25th Amendment for your perusal.
It’s not ambiguous. It is not, and never was, meant to remove sitting presidents simply because we dislike them and feel our power’s being threatened, slipping away into a bottomless chasm like Ashley Judd‘s acting career. But then again, no one has ever accused reps like Jackie Speier of comprehending, or respecting, our constitution.
No, President Trump Can’t Be Removed With the 25th Amendment https://t.co/Eh9bNqwsWs #Trump #ActingPresident
— #SpeakFreely (@Vote_4America) February 21, 2017
Yes, deal with it. Just like we did. For eight long years.
At this point, the Democrats are doing nothing but embarrassing themselves. Which is fine by me. Because the more they make fools of themselves, the more they bully anyone who disagrees with them, the more they rationalize violence as a logical response to ideological opposition, and the more they continue to attack democracy while professing to act on behalf of our constitution, the more those of us watching them with our mouths agape sprint to the right side of the aisle. Whether they want to recognize it or not, the Democrat Party, in free-fall without a parachute, has been hijacked by anarchist loons, and it’s on full display for all to see. Talk about your unfit to serve.
Yeah, as much as I dislike Trump’s manner, and however many screw-ups he’s had in the last month, the ranting about removing him via the 25th Amendment is over the top. If you (the left) want to point out something he’s done that is actually un-Constitutional, feel free.
While I won’t defend anything un-Constitutional he does, I will point the finger and shout “Hypocrite!” when the left tries to make hay with it.
I concur, GWB. These are the same nimrods who sat silently while Obama actually committed impeachable offenses time and again for eight long years.
These people are self-important dweebs. If you can not understand the plain language of the 25th Amendment you should not spout off about using it to remove a POTUS you hate.
Agreed. And if you’ve vowed to uphold the Constitution, and fail to read or understand what it is you’ve promised to defend, YOU are the one who is unfit to serve, imho.
During the 8-year reign of His Magnificence, the Great Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac, a blogger who went by the nom de plume of Dr. Sanity (psychiatrist who formerly served NASA astronauts — I miss her insights) had labeled Obama a “malignant narcissist” with regular notes of his — and the contemporary Liberal cohort as well — behavior as textbook examples of some quite acute mental and behavioral disorders.
The most recent “petition” signed by ersatz mental health care professionals and, no doubt, ascribed to by these whack-a-doodle Lib Congress-critters applies much more closely to our former Prissy-dent than to President Trump.
Trump an egotist? No doubt. Hardly front page news that’s not previously been documented before.
It’s been observed over the years that to successfully campaign for major political office one usually needs to possess quite a, shall we say, “robust” sense of self importance/ego in order to present one’s self as the obvious solution to what’s ailing the city/state/nation. Certainly no shortage of that on Capitol Hill.
I guess these folks must have finally awakened from their self-induced slumber over the past 8 years, along with the MSM and other notable groups suddenly shouting “Eureka!” at the sight of The Donald in the Oval Office.
Sort of like watching all of those alien heads exploding in “Mars Attacks!”
Pass the popcorn….
Do these chuckleheads not realize what would happen if Trump is removed from office for any reason?
If President Trump is removed from office (for any reason) Hillary Clinton is NOT automatically the president by virtue (strange word to use when discussing any Clinton) of being the runner up in the last presidential election.
Chris in N.VA:
You put it better than I would have. Thanks!
Wouldn’t they have to compare some of their own to make a judgment? For example, Maxine Walters? Talk about someone out of her mind. And Pelosi seems to be losing her grip, too. And that Al Franken guy – geez.