OK, but you’re confusing 2 things. There were some anecdotes offered about someone who might have been harmed, and there was a jump to the assertion that some people had died. A request was made concerning the latter. No evidence was ever offered for that. None. Zero. If there was, why doesn’t someone just quote it instead of insisting it’s there, somewhere?
And why do imagine he would? Pence hasn’t done anything remotely worthy of an attack even by Trump standards. From your article:
Trump likes to lash out but Pence is basically untouchable atm and publicly being a total team player.
You’re dressing up an attack on the reasonableness of an inference as “confusion” or “fallacy,” but what you’re actually doing is just disagreeing with an inference.
It isn’t Monopoly. The 25th Amendment is meant to remove a President from office for different reasons than the impeachment process.
If Pence and the rest of Cabinet were to actually decide “this guy can’t be President anymore because he’s not of sound mind, and the 25th Amendment seems to apply here” they should NOT wait their turn, they should remove him from office at once. It would be their duty.
They would not do this in any event, because ideology > America to these people. But it would be right, if they truly believed Trump was unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Isn’t it true that if the 25th is invoked, Trump could challenge it every few days and Congress would have to vote, over and over again, every few days, each time declaring him unfit to serve?
It took me a bit to realize you meant “at the moment,” prompting me to instead picture a ‘mysterious benefactor’ superhero – bulletproof by dint of being like unto some kind of phantom, helpfully bankrolling his fellow costumed do-gooders – or, if you will, a basically untouchable ATM being a total team player.
Ah, if only.
I quoted the entire post:
Click the link. It doesn’t grow more words.
The VP and the Cabinet would have 4 days to respond to Trump’s challenge and after that Congress would have 3 weeks to vote on it. So no, Trump couldn’t do it every few days. Once a month.
[Quote=25th Amendment]
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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office
[/quote]
Also it looks by the wording that Congress could set up a Trump Competency Commission so the Cabinet wouldn’t have to keep voting on it.
You plucked a reply from a 3-consecutive-post conversation in which the first post answers your question.
Was it this post?
Really? Because I thought there has to be some accusation of a criminal act in order to support an impeachment. That seemed to be the point established at Samuel Chase’s impeachment.
I am so confused by this question. Did you not realize that D’Anconia’s post was in reference to that?
Look Bricker, Barack Obama is obviously saying that since his friend was kept in mortal danger it’s safe to assume some people died. That’s obviously a leap so disagree all you like but do you need to turn this into another stupid “logical fallacy” thread?
That’s certainly a political reality, but it’s not a legal requirement.
Yes.
According to that post, his friend was an American citizen; Trump’s ban had no effect on him. So that post contains no evidence at all from which someone could infer anything.
I’m asking, because I didn’t know what post you meant.
And that post, also, has no evidence from which anyone could infer anyone died.
Bricker, Lord Chancellor of Inferences, need not actually argue whether a given inference is reasonable or unreasonable. He can simply declare it to be so, and not only is it rendered unreasonable, but it is rendered not even an inference. Such is the Lord Chancellor’s power. I don’t know why we decided to give you that position, but I guess our only hope now is impeachment.
By the way, the way we “give citizenship” to people who help us in Iraq and Syria is that they get a Special Immigrant Visa to come here and complete naturalization. The Muslim Ban did affect many such people.
If they hadn’t been issued a U.S. passport, the ban could easily have an effect on them.
But hey, feel free to continue to painfully slow walk us through your objections. Your unparalleled logic skills will get you through.