Democrats should vote no on any use of the 25th. Impeach him and let all the dirty laundry out in the open during the tria.
For your reading pleasure, national security pundit Phillip Carter has drafted a set of articles of impeachment.
Well, Pence can’t invoke the 25th unilaterally first of all. After that, it looks like you are trying to play some word games imagining that the second Trump is stripped of Presidential powers then he can no longer send a letter saying he’s competent. You could play better word games if re-read the text. Pence would be Acting President, Trump would still be President and would be able to send his letter at his leisure.
Yes, arrogant and spiteful is totally the way to go. :rolleyes:
Anyone else impressed with the President timing with news of his leaking of state secrets coming in the same news cycle as Chelsea Manning’s release for leaking … diplomatic cables.
How does one article of impeachment disprove the presence of others against Johnson which did allege an illegal act?
No. The 25th Amendment sets a schedule that goes like this:
- The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet (or the majority of Congress itself) declares the President is unfit and the Vice President takes over as President.
- The President can say he is fit at any time and resume his office.
- The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet have four days to challenge the President’s claim and say he really is unfit even if he says he’s fit.
- Congress has forty-eight hours to get together if it’s not already in session after receiving the Vice President’s statement from step 3.
- Congress has twenty-one days to decide (by a two thirds majority) that the Vice President is right and the President is unfit. If they don’t do so within that time period, the President’s statement that he is fit stands by default.
There are gaps in the law. It’s not clear whether the President of the Vice President will hold the office during the period between steps 3 to 5.
Do you remember the scene where it dawns on Daffy Duck why HE keeps getting shot?
“Ah ha! I’ve got it,” Daffy says grimly. “Pronoun trouble.”
I had a similar reaction reading what you wrote.
No, I don’t contend that every particular article, sub-article, or specification in an impeachment must allege a crime. (And as a reminder, when I say “must,” here I refer not to a legal requirement but to what I argue is a political reality.)
I contend that an impeachment, as a whole, must contain a criminal allegation as a matter of political reality.
Why would it and who claimed it disproved their presence? And the simple fact is, the articles that do allege an “illegal act” do so in a way that clearly doesn’t quite line up with the actual criminal legislation, mostly only mimicking some turns of phrase.
Re. criminality or lack thereof.
Impeachment: A Handbook, by Charles Lund Black, @37 (1974 reprint 1998)
Bricker, that pretty much sums up how Trump could be impeached for giving classified information to the Russians that would put people in danger, despite it not being a criminal act for him because as president he had the authority to do so. Doing so in front of Russian press, while banning US press, makes it even more egregious.
Considering the actively harmful but demonstrable successes of Republicans over the past 20 years, arrogant spite does indeed seems to be the most effective strategy in contemporary American politics.
To me, it’s just much more transparent and more likely that people will understand and accept the results.
Jesus, this is turning into another “Bricker, would you be in favor of a state-run UHC plan?” thread. :smack:
Bummer.
Impeachment does not work that way. With impeachment, you put together whatever charges have a reasonable chance of sticking, be they based on criminal law, or somewhat analogous to criminal law, or outside of criminal law.
I agree he could be, as a matter of law.
I argue that this simply won’r happen. I argue that the political reality is not captured by “Impeachment: A Handbook,” by Charles Lund Black.
For example, does Mr. Black discuss the difference in situations when the President is a member of the same party that controls the House as contrasted with the President being a member of the party in the minority in the House?
What do you suppose happens to the cognition of readers to create this kind of result? I’d love to be able to track the precise instant they read the line and then the instant they forget they have read it.
Read what?
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker, you’re being uncharacteristically obtuse here.
Muffin, I think what Bricker is saying is that the articles of impeachment may include some non-criminal stuff, but unless it also includes some actual charges of criminal activity, the impeachment will never get off the ground.
Is that about it?
So you are arguing that if we go through and entire impeachment process, but cannot garner the 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office that then is the time to try to invoke the 25th Amendment which requires 2/3 of the Senate (not to mention the House and half the Cabinet)? That makes no damn sense and seems like a way to piss off the public.
Impeach or not. 25th Amendment or not. Democrats must not do anything so stupid that they might even possibly end up worse off for their protestations. Taking a second run at removal given the first has failed seems like one of the few ways the Democrats could really shoot themselves in the foot with this one ending up looking like sore losers.
Play it right, should impeachment fail, and the Democrats stand to gain mightily. They can step forward and point at the Republicans who stopped the impeachment and argue broadly to sweep the whole damn lot of them out of office.