Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(42,694 posts)
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 01:20 PM Oct 2017

25th Amendment reality check

I know it isn't what folks want to hear, but if you are counting on the 25th amendment being invoked against Trump, you might as well hope for a pony. It isn't going to happen.

The short answer of why it isn't happen is this: Pence. The 25th amendment can only be invoked if the VP goes along and it is simply inconceivable that Pence would support the invocation of the 25th amendment against Trump.

In addition to Pence, invoking the 25th requires the support of a majority of the cabinet or a majority of a body established by Congress. With respect to the cabinet, so long as Trump can fire cabinet members, there is no chance a majority can or will invoke the 25th amendment against him. And if Congress passes a law setting up a body to evaluate and decide whether to invoke the 25th amendment, and the likelihood of Congress agreeing on who/what such a body should be is basically zero, it could and would be vetoed by Trump. To override that veto, you'd need the support of 19 Republican senators (and every Democrat and independent) and the support of every Democrat in the House plus 96 Republicans. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Finally, the 25th amendment isn't going to be invoked against Trump for saber rattling against North Korea, no matter how counter productive and dangerous his actions are. Sure, if Trump threatened to Nuke Australia, or Honolulu, or Topeka -- there'd be an effort to invoke the 25th amendment against him. But threatening North Korea? The US has nukes. And while the US claims that the main reason it has nukes is to deter others from using nukes, the US has never endorsed a "no first use" policy. An American president who stood up and announced that he/she will never allow a nuclear weapon to hit the US before he/she authorizes a nuclear strike would be impeached. Quickly.

That doesn't mean Trump's threats against NK aren't horrifically wrong-headed. They are. But the requisite number of cabinet members or members of Congress, plus the VP, are never going to do something that suggests that the US is foregoing the nuclear option, particularly against a nuclear power with its own crazy ass leader. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK did saber rattling of his own -- not as stupidly and publicly as Trump, but he nonetheless ordered preparations for a strike on Cuba and the Soviet Union. With that history, once again, Pence, the cabinet and 2/3 of Congress aren't going to cite his Korea threats as the basis for concluding that he is "unable to discharge" the duties and obligations of the office of the presidency. Sadly, he is able to discharge those duties -- and has done so in the worst possible way since taking office.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
1. The 25th was brought to a head primarily because of Vice Presidential vacancies with...
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 01:37 PM
Oct 2017

Eisenhower's heart attack scaring people. Nixon's peccadilloes added to the stir.

Fun part of the Wiki article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

1987: Reagan's alleged incapacity[edit]
Upon becoming the White House Chief of Staff in 1987, Howard Baker was advised by his predecessor's staff to be prepared for a

possible invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment[35] due to Reagan's perceived laziness and ineptitude.[36][37]

According to the PBS program American Experience,

What Baker's transition team was told by Donald Regan's staff that weekend shocked them. Reagan was "inattentive, inept", and "lazy", and Baker should be prepared to invoke the 25th Amendment to relieve him of his duties.

Reagan biographer Edmund Morris stated in an interview aired on the program,

The incoming Baker people all decided to have a meeting with him on Monday, their first official meeting with the President, and to cluster around the table in the Cabinet room and watch him very, very closely to see how he behaved, to see if he was indeed losing his mental grip.

Morris went on to explain,

Reagan who was, of course, completely unaware that they were launching a death watch on him, came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly. At the end of the meeting, they figuratively threw up their hands realizing he was in perfect command of himself.[36][37]

HopeAgain

(4,407 posts)
2. I think Pence would be worse than Trump anyway...
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 01:39 PM
Oct 2017

Trump's a self centered egoist. Too inept to stop insulting his supposed allies to get something done. Pence is a true believer in the whole Armageddon/final judgement stuff. Pence would work far better with Republican Congress.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,173 posts)
3. You raise a good number of valid points. However, why is it "inconceivable" Pence would support it?
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 03:52 PM
Oct 2017

For better or worse, Pence would be the direct beneficiary of such an action.

You don't think Pence would be self-serving enough to vote for something that would put him in the Oval Office? You think he's that loyal to Trump?

ElementaryPenguin

(7,800 posts)
4. I think you're overestimating Pence's loyalty to Trump.
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 04:01 PM
Oct 2017

He's an opportunist - and if it would make themselves President, most right-wingers with Presidential ambitions (like Pence) would likely knife their own mothers in the back to achieve that. For example, what WOULDN'T Trump do to get there? He only committed high treason.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
5. Of all of the reasons that the 25th won't be involked I would put Pence's refusal last.
Wed Oct 11, 2017, 04:25 PM
Oct 2017

Pence plays to a constituency of one, Mrs. Pence. If she advises him that he might go to jail and needs to not only take out Trump but leave himself he would listen to her.

The Republican Party is floated on a pool of contributors and if they were to pull their support from Trump the Republican Congress and Senate would follow. Very few Republican politicians can raise money they need to mount a campaign.

I would agree that the chances are slim but would argue that they lie 100% with the contribution class of the Republican Party. If they were determined to make a change this is what I predict they would do:

1) Invoke the 25th Amendment

2) Pence issues wide spread pardons to everyone in the administration

3) Pence picks Romney as his Vice President

4) Pence resigns, gets pardon from Romney

5) Pence spends his later years serving on boards of corporations that serve right wing interests and pockets seven figures a year.

Mother is happy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»25th Amendment reality ch...