JD Vance is next in the line of succession. Both are evil, but only one is incompetent.
There’s also the option of the vice president and the Cabinet declaring that the president is unable to perform his duties under the 25th Amendment, though the vice president would only be “acting president.” And honestly, I think we’re at this point already.
I don’t really think that that is what the 25 amendment is for. The 25th is meant to be used when the president is incapacitated, all he has to do to refute it is show up and say he’s not dead yet.
That can be overridden, but it takes the same majority in Congress and the Senate as impeachment, so it’ll never happen.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-25/
See section 4, paragraph 2.
The Wikipedia article on the 25th Amendment quotes a Yale Law School analysis. Note the mention of “mental impairment”. Does that sound like anyone in particular?
In general, authorities on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment agree that the term “inability” has no specific definition. The original drafters and subsequent commentators provided some examples of what the term encompasses and what would fall outside its ambit, but did not attempt to provide a comprehensive definition of the term itself. To be sure, foremost in their minds at the time of drafting was a physical or mental impairment that would prevent the President from performing his constitutional duties. But the text of Section 4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies. As a result, those deciding whether a President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” should focus on the overall effects of the inability—whether the totality of the circumstances suggests that inability prevents him from discharging the powers and duties of the presidency—rather than the specific characteristics of the inability itself. Absent some inability, however, Section 4 is not a vehicle for separating the President from his powers and duties based solely on political disagreement, however intense it might be.
As far as I can tell from the text of the amendment, if the President denies he’s impaired, it takes a majority in Congress and a 2/3 majority in the Senate to remove him. In other words, the same as impeachment.
Except an impeachment would require Republican members of Congress to accept that he’s committed impeachment-worthy crimes. The advantage of using the 25th Amendment is that they can maintain the illusion that he hasn’t but instead is just mentally impaired.
Of course both are true; he’s both committed crimes (many, many crimes) and is deeply mentally impaired (more so than Joe Biden on his worst day).
And that puts us back in the scenario of whether there’s the political will. Heck, it throws in the added twist of requiring a majority of the Cabinet AND 2/3 of the House have the yarbles for it, too. And that only creates an acting presidency rather than outright removal.
In this current circumstance, we’d have Miller showing up every other legislative day with a new letter purporting to be from Donald seeking to once again trigger the vote to refute the disability until he can peel off one more than 1/3 in either chamber.
I know it’s a small thing, but this seems unnecessary.
Ditto.
I’m not so eager to have an evil, competent President.
That’s what I was driving at, but should have stated it more clearly. Vance can quite probably do a lot more damage than trump.
Perhaps he will begin hating Trump again. Of course, he could equally well decide that he must continue Trumpism to be elected.
He’s beholden to his billionaire backers, most notably Peter Thiel.
It means less to Trump, and he fights to the bitter end, because he can’t imagine losing, but Nixon, more of a realist, resigned rather than face impeachment. Probably this was to preserve his pension, other perks, and IIRC, his full security detail for life.
When someone is removed from office, which has never happened, it’s as though they were never president, as far as many things go, from pension to library-- and a lot of things were speculative: my parents remembered discussions of whether an impeached, guilty, and removed Nixon would get security and a presidential portrait.
Since removal didn’t happen, those things were never resolved, and his resignation was treated for what it was, without considering the reason-- in other words, if he had resigned after diagnosis of an illness, the treatment for which was not compatible with the duties of president, he would receive the full former president’s package, no question. And so it was with his resignation.
Isn’t that Stephen Miller at this point?
Surprised he could say anything given the location of his tongue?
I wanted to gently point out that there’s a topical arena for potentially selling your mushroom chocolates on this site; there’s a whole ‘classified ads’ department further down the list from this Politics and Elections department-type thread.
Perhaps Trump is on mushroom chocolates and that’s why he sounds so insane.
The rest of the above post doesn’t seem to acknowledge President Trump’s expressed demands upon other NATO countries combined with his increasingly meandering wordplay. I think that’s what the original poster was writing about here.
We need to annex Loompaland for strategic chocolate purposes.
If I’ve learned anything from Steve1989MRE it’s that a quality field ration requires quality chocolate.