• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • They haven’t given up on his tactics. Most haven’t called him out. Most haven’t said most of what he says is lies. They continue gerrymandering to an extent never seen. It’s still heading in the wrong direction. USA democracy is in very serious trouble.

    • I'm not familiar with them.

      My argument holds for any group, conservative or liberal, who wants to circumvent the separation of powers and give a few people the ability to determine what is law without a democratic process for changing the law.

      For example, there is a democratic process for changing what the constitution says. It requires the participation of the elected legislators of the various states. Although that process is slow, it is democratic. Some people want to replace it by allowing SCOTUS to change tha constitution by calling it a "living constitution." That process is not democratic.

      What I am discussing is not about the policies determined by amendments but rather the process by which the laws are changed.

    • It is legal for Congress to impeach him, but I think that it would have been illegitimate for Pence to have invoked the 25th amendment. Technically speaking, the language of the 25th amendment does not apply to this kind of a situation.

      I wonder, what exactly are you basing your position on?

      In my opinion, the phrase "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" is at least a bit unclear. More specifically, the 25th amendment does not clarify what "unable" is supposed to mean. The fact that, according to an earlier paragraph, the president can also declare himself "unable" suggests that this must be something quite a bit less drastic than, say, a coma, a stroke or any sort of hostage situation.

      Just looking up the 25th amendment on Wikipedia, it seems as if this is actually not an oversight but by design. Quoting from that page (link below):

      John Feerick, the principal drafter of the amendment,[3]:xii,xx[4]:5[9] writes that Congress determined that "a rigid constitutional definition [of the terms unable and inability] was undesirable, since cases of inability could take various forms not neatly fitting into such a definition ... The debates surrounding the Twenty-fifth Amendment indicate that the terms unable and inability are intended to cover all cases in which some condition or circumstance prevents the President from discharging his powers and duties ..." [3]:112 A survey of scholarship on the amendment found

      no specific threshold – medical or otherwise – for the "inability" contemplated in Section 4. The framers specifically rejected any definition of the term, prioritizing flexibility. Those implementing Section 4 should focus on whether – in an objective sense taking all of the circumstances into account – the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office. The amendment does not require that any particular type or amount of evidence be submitted to determine that the President is unable to perform his duties. While the framers did imagine that medical evidence would be helpful to the determination of whether the President is unable, neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for a determination of inability ... To be sure, foremost in [the minds of the framers] was a physical or mental impairment. But the text of Section 4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies.[4]:7,20

      Among potential examples of such unforeseen emergencies, legal scholars have listed kidnapping of the president and "political emergencies" such as impeachment. Traits such as unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment, or laziness might not in and of themselves constitute inability, but should such traits "rise to a level where they prevented the President from carrying out his or her constitutional duties, they still might constitute an inability, even in the absence of a formal medical diagnosis." In addition, a president who already manifested disabling traits at the time he or she was elected is not thereby immunized from a declaration of inability.[4]:21n63,22n67

      I'd say that the items "political emergency", "incompetence", "impeachable conduct", "poor judgment" and "laziness" (the latter of which "ris[ing] to a level where they prevent the President from carrying out his or her constitutional duties") definitely apply.

    • I'm not familiar with them.

      Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am speaking about the Supreme Court decision that Obama mentioned critically in a State of the Union address. It enabled a flood of corporate and union cash into political campaigns.

    • A billionaire such as Bezos or Musk could buy up news outlets throughout the country and use their money to swing an election one way or another, that would be a democratic process regardless of what you or I think of such a strategy.

      However, the idea that the Constitution can be changed by only five people is not a democratic process.

    • One can certainly argue the 25th amendment wasn’t intended for this type of situation and was more about physical/mental incapacity. That said, I do think one could also interpret it the other way.

      As for impeachment, the case is very clear. One interesting side note I learned is even if Trump isn’t convicted by the Senate, congress can still vote to convict him by simple majority of violating the 14th ammendnent for inciting an insurrection against the U.S., barring him from ever holding federal office again. Pretty interesting detail there.

    • One interesting side note I learned is even if Trump isn’t convicted by the Senate, congress can still vote to convict him by simple majority of violating the 14th ammendnent for inciting an insurrection against the U.S.

      Congress can refuse to seat someone and use this as a reason. I have no idea how it would be applied to the President unless a court ruled him as disqualified and it was upheld.

    • Trump has officially been impeached for a second time by the House of Representatives. First president to be impeached twice. Crazy times.

    • Final vote tally-Yea 232 Nay 197. 4 Not Voting (All Republicans). All 222 Democrats voted Yea along with 10 Republicans. Nancy Pelosi has gaveled the vote. Trump has been impeached.

    • I like that many Republicans who voted no, at least still public ally said he’s to blame for what happened but that impeachment wasn’t the way to go. I’d like full discosure on who in the Republican Party have public ally said he’s to blame.

    • None of this would even have to be discussed if the Republican Party all came out and said most of what Trump has been saying was lies and we were mistaken for not saying it sooner. We were wrong and we apologize to the American people.