And as with impeachment, the Supreme Court would throw out the challenge because it’s purely a political process.
You’re postulating the American people would rise up in armed rebellion because the cabinet and congress followed a constitutional process. Well ■■■■ those traitors.
No.
It is misuse of the procedures.
If they wanted him removed because he fired Comey, the solution in the Constitution is impeachment.
The 25th was made for incapacitation - not for removing a President you disagree with - even if you vehemently disagree with him.
Even contemplating using the 25th for this end-run around the election of 120 million American voters is sickening and disgusting. They surely outed themselves for what they really are, here. I can’t think of anything more unpatriotic than this.
M
The funny thing about the people who are crying foul with the 25th but saying impeachment would be fine is that it’s much more difficult to invoke the 25th as the requirements are more stringent. A majority of the cabinet and 2/3 of both the house and the senate. Impeachment just requires a simple majority in the house and a 2/3 majority in the senate to convict.
You people are irrational.
How so?
Not if you plot and conspire.
Why did you need to do that?
Because he is not unable to perform his duties. He is quite able.
Ah, I see. I don’t disagree.
You’re mischaracrsizing them and creating fake news. They thought he was mentally unstable and therefore not fit for the presidency. He was easily confused, he persevereted, he mixed things up. That’s why they’d wear a wire, to record his ramblings to show to cabinet members.
The president was not made king and there are means to remove a president even if they’ve been elected in the usual way.
Any traitor who rebelled because the Constitution was followed would be treated as a domestic terrorist and dealt with accordingly
Where, in the constitution, is “unable” defined?
Correct. Trump supporters are asserting that MERELY DISCUSSING invoking the 25 is sedition. It’s asinine, and absolutely untrue.
Ironic, isn’t it? The Trump age has been very ironic.
Republicans are humble. They don’t sloganeer their resistance, they just don’t act.
Ask Merrick Garland.
What are you babbling on about?
It’s not about whether they would, but whether they could, and they absolutely could. They are ABLE to do it, but that doesn’t mean they would do it.
If it would have gone before the Supreme Court, it would have been a slam dunk 9-0, as the constitution directly prescribes the mechanism that was invoked. We would then be saying President Pence.
Whether you find it legitimate is irrelevant to whether it was illegal for them to discuss, and nothing in the law prohibits the discussion of the possibility of invoking of the 25th amendment.
Nonsense.
If I can tell that the President is not mentally unstable so could they. Americans would never have stood for a coup using such an obvious lie.
The only way to remove a President who is not incapacitated is by impeachment. They contemplated an end-run because they knew he wasn’t guilty of doing anything impeachable.
They more than anyone knew, because they were in fact guilty of using the DOJ and the FBI as a political arm of the DNC and they knew that fact was unravelling on them.
M
But the discussion is not wrong is it?
That assumes, like most here, that they were discussing just section 4.
They might have wanted to talk to the President and convince him that he should invoke section 3. Completely within the president’s powers. No votes required.
Of course I have no facts or evidence beyond the wording of the 25th, but do crazy conspiracies need facts? This thread indicates otherwise.
Apparently, the discussion is sedition.
Awesome the way those who are all about the constitution when it suits them, throw it out the window when it doesn’t.
