I think it has a place. For example, the hypothetical of using it to charge the getaway driver makes sense to me.
In this case, it feels too broad. Just my view.
They should all be charged with insurrection and treason though.
Not exactly. It’s not “guilt by association” and people 500 yards away wouldn’t be culpable because unless they provided material support or otherwise incited it they wouldn’t be co-conspirators.
The stereotype is that is a of a crew of bank robbers. All 4 break into a bank, all four stand to profit from the crime, all four planned and executed it. All four are equally liable. And if someone dies, either by direct action or by consequential events, then they are all on the hook. Even the getaway driver outside in the car. And yes, even if a cop shoots one of the perpetrators, the accomplices can be charged with that person’s murder since the death was a foreseeable result and direct consequence of their actions.
In this case, everyone who stormed the building and/or incited them to do so is a accomplice. People simply protesting outside are not.
This is not true, read it again:
Section 4
“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.” italics mine.
Congress could provide for a special task force, headed by Pence, of Congressional leaders.
They were committing a felony, of that there is no doubt. A death occured as a result of that felony- of that there is not doubt.
I don’t think that’s what that means, Congress can’t just bypass the Impeachment process by creating a special task force. And practically it’s not possible, since “by law” means the president would need to sign it for it to take effect.
wow. I was at the library when it started, when i got back to tranfer to a local bus, I see my former friend out there walking the streets in one of those 3 pointed hats from days of yore, carrying a gigantic flag around. Lord.
Or pass it by a overwhelming majority.
But yeah, senior cabinet officials is the way to go.
Shumer and Pelosi call on Pence to invoke 25th Ammendment. Pelosi did also mention impeachment (I have the TV on but sound off so don’t know the details)
Brian
Transportation Secretary Chao is the first cabinet member to resign over Trump’s role in the riot. IMHO this is dereliction of duty: she is running away from having to face her responsibilities in a 25th Amendment situation. Of course she is married to the Modern Machiavelli, so not surprising.
How do cabinet vacancies/acting cabinet members factor into the “50% of the cabinet” calculation?
What a chicken shit cunt. Now she conveniently can’t participate in the invocation of the 25th. The dereliction of duty continues until the last.
Yeah, I agree.
Naw. If the cops shoot and kill one of the guys in the bank who was pointing a gun, I really DON’T think the driver should be charged with murder.
Is your issue with felony murder in general, or just the specific application to police actions against the perpetrators?
In general. I think it’s way too broad. Yes, if you help plan an event that is likely to get someone killed, sure, conspiracy to murder/manslaughter/etc. seems reasonable. But we already have those charges. There are plenty of felonies with a low-to-moderate risk of anyone dying, where the actual cause of death is pretty unrelated to what a lot of the perpetrators did. Charge them with what they did, not with being guilty of a felony in the wrong place at the wrong time.
[hijack] Most of the time, it’s used as a threat to get them to a plea bargain. Here in IL, IIRC, it’s been charged numerous times but only used once in the last 10 years. Remember a couple of years ago when a group of kids tried to steal a guy’s car; he shot and killed one of the kids? The only kid over 18 was charged with felony murder and plead to something lesser. There was a lot of hue and cry, wailing and gnashing of teeth, clutching of pearls, etc.; all came to nothing.[/hijack]
I regret having mentioned felony murder. Now please get back to the OP.
Honestly, I think Trump has stuffed the cabinet with such toadies that there is no chance of invoking the 25th amendment. If 19 Republican senators can be brought on board it impeachment and removal could be accomplished in no time. After all, McConnell has already established that there is no need to hear evidence.
Her resignation is stated for Monday. That gives a window of a few days for the invocation. The president is clearly delusional.
Pelosi said that they need to invoke 25 or impeachment will happen.
I agree with this entirely. The 25th amendment wasn’t designed for the current situation we find ourselves in. It was designed for a situation where the president suddenly became incapacitated and it was clear to everyone (except possibly himself) that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties.
That is not the case with Trump. Trump is basically the same vile person he was when he was inaugurated 4 years ago and is no more incapable now than he was then. It is his actions rather than his physical condition that demand his removal from office. This is what impeachment is for.
Twisting the 25th this way to get Trump out, reeks of the same parliamentary technicality bullshit that the Republicans are trying to use to overturn the election, and carries a bad precedent.
As noted, this isn’t correct, and it doesn’t become true even if the entire process of both houses affirming his removal were completed. Even in that case, Trump isn’t removed from office, he’s still the President. His duties and powers have been stripped, but Pence doesn’t become President at any point. Impeachment is the only way to remove him.
As Buck_Godot notes above, the 25th isn’t really designed for this situation. The one way it would be appropriate is if there was an immediate threat from him - remove his powers quickly with the 25th while impeachment proceedings get underway.
This Slate article has a great discussion of the amendment and its limitations.
Yes, impeachment is actually faster (potentially) and is more appropriate. The problem isn’t that he’s recently become incompetent. The problem is that he has recently violated his oath of office in a rather obvious way.
The second part of your statement is true, but the first part isn’t. The 25th can strip his powers more quickly than impeachment.