A Better Plan Than Pelosi’s:
Repeal the 25th Amendment
New York Sun,
by
Editorial
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
10/11/2020 5:08:54 AM
It’s starting to look like the states never should have ratified the 25th Amendment to begin with. At least not the part that deals with a dysfunctional president. Certainly it’s hard to imagine a scheme more nefarious than the one that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is advancing. In one of those crises the Democrats don’t like to let go to waste, it would turn over the task of removing an elected president to a panel of — wait for it — psychiatrists.
Mrs. Pelosi’s plan has nothing to do with President Trump’s case of Covid, contrary to what she suggested in her mincing press conference on Thursday.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 10/11/2020 6:01:58 AM (No. 568862)
“Mincing” or “menacing.”
An excellent editorial.
(And Nancy is crazy as a bedbug. They need a provision — say, 3 votes of either party and 3 psychiatrists, and 3 dentists— to get rid of her, her teeth, and her fake mask-scarves.)
17 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 10/11/2020 6:11:01 AM (No. 568865)
Current dems are a party of losers. They fail at everything they try except for one thing. They are very good at being sneaky and underhanded which is a moral corruption that law, the basis of our government, is not efficient at managing.
Consider that the law gives us the possibility of impeachment. It is not a component for a functional government. It is an escape route in the case of a seriously corrupt President. It is not a normal, everyday process like passing laws. Yet, that is how the dems are attempting to use it. Part of the reason is that using it creates chaos and uncertainty. The bar is set low, only a majority of the House is enough to set things in motion. For the hapless dems, that is a useful weapon. However, in the end, the required Senate 2/3 majority is a near impossibility.
Having failed with impeachment, the dems keep trying to create a more useful tool. How can they warp the intent of the 25th Amendment, another escape route to only be used in highly unusual circumstances? Why, they can create a "commission" of Psychiatrists, the group of doctors that unethically evaluate Trump when he is not their patient and he is not in a clinical setting. A "doctor" that does such a thing should lose their medical license. Sure, the "safeguards" would still remain. The VP would need to agree and the Congress would need to approve with 2/3 numbers but the real intent of the dems, chaos, would prevail. The way the dems would use this and the way they used impeachment is government "rioting". A moral and ethical party wouldn't act this way.
One thing for sure, the chances of Nasty Pelousy passing any such legislation is ZERO as it the possibility of repealing any Constitutional amendments, including changing the Electoral College or the way Senators are elected. It's all unserious babble by a party that has nothing else to offer.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 10/11/2020 6:53:14 AM (No. 568894)
Federal Marshall’s should be dispatched to arrest Nanny for sedition......
19 people like this.
If they go down this road, any time in the future that one party controls both the House and Senate, they could remove the president from the other party.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 10/11/2020 7:10:23 AM (No. 568907)
Forget about it. The 25th Amendment is not going to be repealed. Not a chance.
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
franq 10/11/2020 8:02:30 AM (No. 568965)
Our government is quickly devolving into tribal warfare.
4 people like this.
The ignorant and foolish may be taken in by the 'scandals' and 'crimes' but there is undoubtedly a subset of the electorate watching the Dems and the media release these trial balloons on a 2 or 3 day timetable and concluding that the balloons' disposability - as demonstrated by the Dems and media - are a sign that the balloons and the Dems/media are easily dismissed as false.
Fascists don't change their stripes but a party and a media hive mind confident in their candidate would talk about their candidate, not about his opponent whether he was an incumbent or not. John McCain and Mitt Romney got the usual put-downs of any GOP candidate but mostly the media talked about Obama in 2008 & 2012.
As Andrew Klavan notes elsewhere today, the media are playing a bizarre sort of game where they cover Biden as little as possible, hold their breath and hope for the best.
0 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 10/11/2020 9:17:31 AM (No. 569046)
Repeal Pelousy.
3 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
petrichor 10/11/2020 10:08:26 AM (No. 569103)
I think Trump nailed it. This is about removing Biden if he doesn't go willingly.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 10/11/2020 12:55:37 PM (No. 569270)
I would say the amendment needs adjustment to include the Speaker being of unsound mind as well, for that position is so close to the Oval Office that we do not need a crazy lady like Pelosi. Anyone in that line of succession should be the highest caliber of mental health, not a crazed and corrupted politician who is obsessed with her hatred of Trump.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 10/11/2020 1:57:30 PM (No. 569325)
There may be too much worry about Nancy's proposed Committee, which in Section 4 of Article 25 of the Constitution is referred to as ". . . such other body as Congress may by law provide . . . " Section 4 specifies that "Such other body" does not decide the issue of permanent removal; that body transmits their written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Section 4 is the only section in the Constitution that addresses PERMANENT removal from Office due to incapacity. It mandates that a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate is always required to permanently remove a President from Office due to incapacity, including if "such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit[s] . . . their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Section 4 also specifies "Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue [of permanent removal]."
Hopefully liberals will not scream "Section 4 is racist!" as Section 4 includes ". . . duties of his office." No doubt they would very much prefer ". . . duties of his OR HER office."
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DVC 10/11/2020 2:16:09 PM (No. 569346)
If Republicans take the House back, hold the Senate and Presidency....this should be tried.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)