Why Trump will never be removed from office via the 25th Amendment

[onenote]

There are a lot of posts these days talking about the "25th amendment" solution to the Trump presidency. Those discussions are, however, a total waste of time. It's never going to happen.

Under the 25th Amendment, removing the President (temporarily) requires that the Vice President and either a majority of the cabinet or such "other body" Congress establishes "by law" send a written declaration to the Senate and House that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

Here are some of the reasons those suggesting the 25th amendment offers a realistic path to removing Trump are fooling themselves (and those who buy into their argument):

First, legislative proposals to establish a Commission or panel to assess the president's ability to discharge the powers and duties of his office (and there currently are two such proposals -- one that would create a Commission made up of 11 physicians (including psychiatrists) and one that would establish a panel made up of former presidents) aren't going anywhere. That's just a fact of life. This Congress,with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, is not going to support a measure that appears aimed at Trump.

Second, removing the president requires the VP to concur. For Pence to concur is for Pence to admit that the guy who picked him is unfit for office. Not going to happen.

Third, another political reason a 25th amendment process isn't going anywhere is that there will not be support for a process where by a small group of doctors could effectively decide that the president should be removed by a simple majority -- six doctors saying yes v. 5 saying no. Removal via the impeachment process requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate and the Senate for one will never agree to a process that makes it easier to remove a president.

Fourth, the 25th amendment process was intended to assess the physical incapacity of the president, not mental conditions. Physicians can come up with medical diagnoses but they can't address the threshold issue of what the "powers and duties" of the Presidency are. That's an inherently legal/political issue. When a president is unconscious or in vegetative state, unable to sign legislation or attend to the other powers and duties of the office (such as making appointments), there is a need for a replacement. But Trump is signing legislation, issuing executive orders, making appointments. Consequently, it can be argued (and will be argued) that he's not unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Being narcissistic or even psychopathic isn't something one wants in a president, but it doesn't render the president incapable of discharging the duties and powers of the office.

Think of it this way: If Trump had issued the same executive orders, made the same appointments, signed the same legislation but hadn't made any tweets or speeches, would there be a basis for a doctor to conclude he's unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office? A physician asked to opine on Trump's ability to discharge the powers and duties of the office would have to be given guidance as to what those powers and duties are, and there is no way Congress agrees to a fuzzy mental condition standard.

[FreepFryer]

1. LOL. (n/t)

[loyalsister]

2. Thanks for posting

Removing a president from office should be difficult. When republicans succeeded in pursuing impeachment after an extensive witch hunt, they reduced what should be a very serious process into a spiteful exercise of vengeance. The 25th amendment and impeachment should require inarguable evidence.

[Ace Rothstein]

3. That's a shame.

It worked out much easier on 24.

[PJMcK]

7. Ain't TV great?

In "The West Wing," President Bartlett's daughter was kidnapped and he invoked the 25th Amendment thus turning over the government to his political rival, the Republican Speaker of the House, (brilliantly played by John Goodman). Incidentally, there wasn't a Vice President because John Hoynes had resigned because of a sex scandal. Of course it all turned out okay in the end.

Real life isn't so neat, is it?

[PJMcK]

4. Well articulated argument

Your analysis is effective, onenote, and I believe you're correct.

One component of the 25th Amendment that strikes me as nefarious is that the Vice President and more than half of the President's cabinet have to conspire to usurp power from the President. Assuming that the President isn't incapacitated, think about what that implies. The VP and the cabinet would take over the government by a de facto coup!

Our country is in a precarious situation and the people in the Executive Branch are absolutely not able to manage a functioning government.

[milestogo]

5. Asserting that something is "not going to happen" is not an argument.

Its just an assertion of your opinion, without any facts that provide real persuasion.

[onenote]

8. Maybe you didn't read the post

It's backed up with a lot of facts. Please feel free to present a rebuttal to them one at a time.

Here's one more fact to consider. Trump can veto any legislation implementing the 25th amendment. It is my opinion based on the factual record of trumps behavior and the make up of the house and senate that he would do so and congress would be unable to override. If you have facts that support a different conclusion please fire away.

[milestogo]

9. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they did not read the post.

There is already a movement among democrats to remove Trump from office. There may not be Republican support at this moment, but that does not mean that there will not be support for removing him from office a few weeks or months from now. Support for Trump is dwindling with every day that passes.

Republicans are interested in their own political futures. When sticking with Trump is perceived as a liability for their own job security they will turn on him in a heartbeat. I believe that day is coming.

[onenote]

11. If there is enough Repub support to override a trump veto

there would be enough suooort to impeach.

Why would they go though the uncertain(and temporary) 25th amendment process when they could use the established impeachment process?

[UTUSN]

6. Exactly. Not only would there need to be widespread agreement, but power greedy pols would never

go along, even from our side (MANCHIN, for example).

[Doodley]

10. Even if it isn't successful, it may sway more public opinion against Trump.

[marylandblue]

12. While you are right that a Republican congress will not pass a law aimed at removing Trump

I could see Pence making a political decision that Trump is in fact mentally unfit for duty. The 25th amendment is deliberately vague on what constitutes unfitness for duty, so they could say that he is unfit for duty based on their own determination that Trump is fucking nuts, no diagnosis required.

[onenote]

13. Pence would be conceding that he agreed to be the running

mate of a nut job and continued to support him for months thereafter. Even though trump didnt suddenly suffer a mental breakdown. He's been behaving the same way all along

Impeachment is the only plausible way of removing trump.

[marylandblue]

14. He could easily argue that Trump got worse, or that he thought it was all for show, but

I agree that impeachment is far more likely. I expect that Mueller will complete his investigation in 2018, indict people, perhaps including Trump, and make it an issue for the 2018 election. Alternatively, Trump will try to fire Mueller, which will set off a firestorm that becomes an issue for 2018.

[onenote]

15. Yep.