Resolution of Inquiry Re Impeachment; Commission to Declare President Incapacitated Re 25th Amendment

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 20834
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Resolution of Inquiry Re Impeachment; Commission to Declare President Incapacitated Re 25th Amendment

Post by Addie » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:56 pm

Think Progress
Longtime Trump adviser says any politician who votes for impeachment ‘will endanger their own life’

Roger Stone, one of President Trump’s oldest and most-trusted advisers, warned that any politician who voted to impeach Donald Trump “will endanger their own life.”

Stone began by taunting members of Congress who were calling for Trump’s impeachment. “Try to impeach him, just try it!,” Stone exclaimed. He then promised that, if Trump was impeached, there would be a violent, armed response.

“You will have a spasm of violence in this country, an insurrection, like you’ve never seen,” he promised. “The people will not stand for impeachment. A politician that votes for it will endanger their own life.”

Toward the end of the interview, Stone claimed he was “not advocating violence.”
¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 20834
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Resolution of Inquiry Re Impeachment; Commission to Declare President Incapacitated Re 25th Amendment

Post by Addie » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:01 pm

LA Times: Trump foes, questioning his mental fitness, are citing the 25th Amendment. So how does that work?
¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 20834
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Resolution of Inquiry Re Impeachment; Commission to Declare President Incapacitated Re 25th Amendment

Post by Addie » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:40 am

WaPo - Jane Chong and Benjamin Wittes
Constitutional law experts: Congress could impeach Trump on these 3 charges ...

The time for musing has passed. It's now time to begin a serious conversation about the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump by opening a formal impeachment inquiry.

The evidence of criminality on Trump's part is little clearer today than it was a day, a week, or a month ago. But no conscientious member of the House of Representatives can at this stage fail to share McConnell's doubts about Trump's fundamental fitness for office. As the Trump presidency enters its eighth month, those members of Congress who are serious about their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution" must confront a question.

It's not, in the first instance, whether the president should be removed from office, or even whether he should be impeached. It is merely this: Whether given everything Trump has done, said, tweeted, and indeed been since his inauguration, the House has a duty, as a body, to think about its obligations under the impeachment clauses of the Constitution - that is, whether the House needs to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open a formal inquiry into possible impeachment. ...

In our view, Congress should be evaluating at least three baskets of possible impeachable offenses. There is a good deal of overlap between these classes of misconduct, but they are sufficiently distinct to warrant individual attention:
Trump's abuses of power, most obviously exemplified by his conduct with respect to the investigations into his campaign's collusion with Russia,

his failures of moral leadership, and

his abandonment of the basic duties of his office.
¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 20834
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Resolution of Inquiry Re Impeachment; Commission to Declare President Incapacitated Re 25th Amendment

Post by Addie » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:48 pm

WaPo OpEd - Eric Posner
Trump could be removed for political incompetence — using the 25th Amendment

President Trump’s tenure has exposed a defect in our constitutional system: A president can be impeached and removed from office if convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. He can be removed, under the conventional understanding of the 25th Amendment, if he is incapacitated by mental or physical illness. But there is no obvious solution for a president who has not committed a crime or been disabled by illness, but has lost the confidence of the public because of a failure of temperament, ideology or ability.

The current understanding of the 25th Amendment should be enlarged so as to provide authority to address this problem, through creation of a Presidential Oversight Council empowered to recommend removal of the president on political rather than medical grounds. When both the president’s party and the opposing party lose confidence in the president’s ability to govern, the council would stand ready to evaluate him and make a recommendation to Congress. Congress would be required to vote on its recommendation.

Certainly, the authors of the 25th Amendment had in mind presidents who suffered from illness while in office, such as Woodrow Wilson after his stroke. But they deliberately used broad language that goes beyond psychological or physical disability. The amendment refers to a president who is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This language does not specifically refer to mental or physical factors as the source of the inability, and thus allows removal of a president whose incompetence results from other reasons — including a failure of temperament, ideology or ability. ...

Congress should create such a council and staff it not with medical professionals (as proposed in a bill this spring by some Democrats in Congress), but with senior elected officials of both parties — the top Republican and Democratic elected officials in Congress, plus a few governors as well. The body would be required to meet periodically and verify that the president is able to discharge his powers and duties. Of course, it would be permitted to consult with medical and mental health experts, but they would not have any power to make decisions.
¡Qué vergüenza!

Post Reply

Return to “Congress”