Except it’s in the context of the 25th Amendment, so it doesn’t mean VP Harris can unilaterally remove President Biden. If she used the proposed commission to try to do so, President Biden can contest it in the Congress, in exactly the same way as if the Veep and Cabinet tried to declare him incompetent. And then it’s up to Congress to decide. Unless 2/3 of both houses agree with the Veep, the President resumes duties.
Could be useful after the election but before Biden gets sworn in when Trump is even more unhinged than he is now.
It would be, if it could pass. I suppose having it ready couldn’t hurt. And the new Congress is seated Jan. 1, so there are 20 days between then and inauguration day. Who knows.
No, because
At a news conference announcing the measure, Pelosi insisted that the legislation would apply to future presidents, rather than Trump, but argued that his recent health challenges underscore the need for such a process.
This is from the article linked to in the OP.
Someone on CNN noted that Pelosi is quite good at getting under Trump’s skin, and that is what this is about. Plus, as said above, it focuses more attention on Trumps deranged pronouncements.
I don’t pretend to understand it either, I was just relating what was posited to me.
I prefer my CT interactions at homeopathic dosage levels when it can’t be completely avoided.
For a bill to become law, it has to pass in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just because a bill started in the HOR won’t pass the Senate doesn’t mean it can’t receive majority approval in the HOR. Although admittedly the timeframes are now tight for properly constructed legislation, Pelosi and the HOR democrats could easily pass appropriations bills through the HOR for issues they think Americans care about, and that they want to progress. For example, they could pass a bill to increase the USA’s funding of the WHO. That’s in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s stance on the WHO and represents meaningful opposition.
I agree with this sentence of yours:
My argument is she’s doing so in a stupid manner by bringing up the 25th amendment. She needs to be appealing to mainstream Americans, not frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Trumpers. The idea that she’s being bipartisan in bringing up HOR consideration on the 25th amendment so is too ridiculous to discuss.
I think frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Trumpers ARE mainstream Americans!