Trump shares Dershowitz quote saying use of 25th Amendment would be 'unconstitutional'

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill



BY JOHN BOWDEN - 02/15/19 07:54 AM EST

President Trump late Thursday tweeted an apparent response to remarks from his former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who told "60 Minutes" that top law enforcement officials had discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.

Trump quoted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Thursday that McCabe's comments represented an assault against the Constitution.

Link to tweet

The comments followed Dershowitz's remarks to Carlson earlier in the night, where the Harvard law professor and former O.J. Simpson attorney described efforts to remove the president as "power-grabbing."

"Any Justice Department official who even mentioned the 25th amendment in the context of President Trump has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution," Dershowitz said Thursday. "The framers had in mind something very specific, and trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent impeachment provisions or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power-grabbing."



Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430145-trump-tweets-dershowitz-quote-calling-use-of-25th-amendment

---

Alan Dershowitz on Report That DOJ Considered 25th Amendment: ‘Clearly an Attempt at a Coup D’état’

by Joe DePaolo | Feb 14th, 2019, 10:30 pm

-snip-

Appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight Thursday, the Harvard Law professor emeritus argued that the 25th Amendment’s scope is limited to presidents who cannot perform their duties.

“If [McCabe’s comments are] true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d’état,” Dershowitz said. He added, “The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It’s about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It’s not about the most fundamental disagreements. It’s not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution.”

Dershowitz went on to label the 25th Amendment talks as “despicable.”

“The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind something very specific,” he said. “And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing.”

https://www.mediaite.com/online/alan-dershowitz-on-mccabes-claim-doj-looked-at-ousting-trump-via-25th-amendment-clearly-an-attempt-at-a-coup-detat/

[zaj]

1. Gaslight: Following the Constitution is the act of a 3rd world dictator

Declaring a fake national emergency to seize more power is... Nothing to worry about.

[Botany]

2. So using powers that are granted by the Constitution are unconstitutional?

[DirtEdonE]

3. What could trump possibly have on dershowitz?

To make dershowitz supply him with such (as ridiculous as it is) "legal" cover?

Hmmmm...

Second Woman Says Jeffrey Epstein ‘Directed’ Her to Have Sex With Alan Dershowitz
https://www.thedailybeast.com/second-woman-says-jeffrey-epstein-directed-her-to-have-sex-with-alan-dershowitz

I wonder also why dershowitz would still be advising a filthy slug like epstein?

Alan Dershowitz says he's still advising Jeffrey Epstein
https://www.axios.com/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-legal-advice-1a13ad59-a718-46c9-9813-11231604a387.html

[cab67]

17. He's a contrarian.

I know the species - there are several in my field. They like to take positions opposite of what their colleagues would normally take. The position itself doesn't matter - it's the act of opposition.

[The Truth Is Here]

20. One word: Epstein.

[Chickensoup]

27. sex with a minor. That is a serious crime to have someone with that hanging over you!!!!!

I hope the investigation and the case will be reopened again.

[Farmer-Rick]

4. What a f*cking moron.

"You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution." Yeah Traitor little-hands Trumpy Dumpy, It's only an attack if other people break the law.

He thinks: "See, I don't have to obey the law. I say fuck the law. But You, you have to obey it just because. Nah-nah-nah, nah, nah-nah.

Trump is a f*cking childish moron.

[PatSeg]

7. Yep

Everyone has to obey the law, except for Trump, his family, and his minions.

Trump is the "law and order" president, except when he is being corrupt or lying or in a bad mood or listening to Putin.............

[dsc]

5. He is at least partially correct on this.

the 25th amendment is very clear in its history and the removal via that should be for illness (mental of physical) to the point of incapacitation. This is Wilson had a stroke, Kennedy got shot territory. Not Trump is a traitor territory. At the time this would have been being discussed it people weren't saying Trump is senile, they were saying he is a crook and/or a traitor. Impeachment is to be used in that case.

[exboyfil]

9. Exactly

Really the DOJ/FBI was pretty screwed up. That is why Trump got elected. The 25th was always an insane option for a functioning President. If you can't get impeachment, how do you expect to get 1/2 of the cabinet, 2/3rds of the House, and 2/3rds of the Senate to agree to it? Also Trump would be able to continue to request resumption of his powers - Pence does not become President he would just be acting with the authority of the President.

Comey and McCabe were hacks. Too bad Clinton didn't get the chance to fire them.

[onenote]

13. +1

[Gothmog]

6. For this thread

Link to tweet

?s=20

[BumRushDaShow]

8. So IOW, an active Constitutional Amendment is "unconstitutional"

To summarize, a Constitutional Amendment requires -

1.) Passage of the Amendment request by 2/3rd of the members of both chambers of Congress and signature by a President -OR-
by request by 2/3rds of the states to hold a Constitutional Convention

AND

2.) Ratification by 3/4 of the states (legislatures + gubernatorial signature)



(the danger here is that if they can unilaterally declare the 25th Amendment null and void, they can do the same with the rest of the Constitution)

[erpowers]

10. It Is in the Constitution

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2019, 05:02 PM - Edit history (6)

The 25th Amendment is in the Constitution. How can something be unconstitutional if it is in the Constitution? Donald Trump is one of the stupidest, if not the stupidest, people to ever be in the White House.

What is going on with Alan Dershowitz? For him to say something so stupid as Justice Department officials talking about using the 25th Amendment against was unconstitutional is just crazy. There were ample reasons to use the 25th Amendment against Donald Trump. It is not completely clear that the man is competent enough to be President. We are not completely sure that Donald Trump can perform the duties of the office.

[onenote]

15. It can be unconstitutional if it doesn't conform to the constitutional provisions

The 25th amendment is specific: it is for situations where a president is unable to discharge the duties and powers of the office. It is not for use when the president is able to discharge the duties and powers of the office but does so in a way that are disliked by some or even all of the electorate.

In any event, discussing the use of the 25th amendment is silly and the idea that it was a topic of discussion at the DOJ is unhelpful. It is much much harder to remove a president using the 25th amendment than through the impeachment process and why DOJ would discuss the former, rather than the latter, is more than a bit strange.

[Honeycombe8]

11. If the 25th amendment is not for Trump, who on earth WOULD it be for?

Interesting that Trump doesn't argue his actions have been proper. He argues that "you can't do that....na, na, na, na, na."

Dershowitz's reputation is ruined. I read somewhere why Dershowitz has become a lapdog for Trump, ruining his reputation in the process, but I forget what it is. Whatever I read, it explained it. He's a shill for Trump and his opinions are not based on reality, facts, and the law. It's about being a shill.

[onenote]

14. Someone who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office

Sadly, that is not Trump. He can discharge the powers and duties. Indeed, it is precisely because he can discharge them -- he can sign legislation, he can veto legislation, he can nominate judges, ambassadors and cabinet members -- that we dislike him so much. It's not because he can't discharge them, it's because we don't like the way he discharges the powers and duties of the office.

The 25th amendment was not designed to remove a president who is able to discharge the duties and powers of the office but does so in a way a lot of folks don't like.

[Honeycombe8]

21. I believe it can mean more than technically signing orders, and speaking.

I think it may mean more than merely signing Executive orders that others prepare and put before you, and not signing orders that you requested but others decided not to do and so you forgot.

After all, even Reagan, who had Alzheimer's and couldn't answer simple questions, was able "to discharge the powers and duties," in a way. But not really. He was not running things. Others were. All they needed was his signature and a light prepared speech occasionally.

There's something wrong with Trump. It's not that we disapprove. There is something wrong with him. This is why the DOJ considered the 25th amendment, as well as the person who wrote the supposed assurance to the public anonymously ("adults are in the room" ), where the person explained that when Trump requested nonsensical orders, they simply wouldn't do them, or would remove them from his desk, knowing that Trump would forget. He did.

He speaks about things that aren't true, that are more than just puffing for political reasons. He says the wall is being built (it's not), then the next day says he wants to build a wall, then the next day he says the wall is currently being built (again, it's not).

And of course, he consistently acts in the interest of Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than the United States. Which isn't performing the duties of the office of the President.

[onenote]

22. The history of the amendment establishes that it was intended to be used in the narrowest of cases

And it was a silly academic exercise for DOJ to discuss it anyway since the likelihood of the VP and the Cabinet members Trump picked invoking it was next to nil and even if they had, he could reverse their declaration immediately by sending a letter to Congress asserting he was not unable to discharge the duties and, at the same time, he could fire any of the Cabinet officials that had invoked the amendment. In the end, it would fall to Congress to decide whether to override the president's declaration that he was able to discharge the duties of the office and that would require a 2/3 vote by both the House and Senate - a higher bar than is posed by the impeachment process.

Why McCabe and others were talking about the 25th given the absolute certainty that it couldn't be successfully invoked is mystifying. It would have made more sense to talk about impeachment.

[Honeycombe8]

23. I agree that it was not a good idea for McCabe to tell the public they'd discussed that.

To discuss it among themselves is fine, if they think it's warranted. Obviously, they decided it wouldn't work. But okay to discuss anything they think is warranted. But McCabe shouldn't have told the public, IMO, because the White House is already paranoid, esp about some people in the DOJ and the intel community. "Deep state" and all that.

It is a high bar, for sure. But an argument could be made that Trump qualifies. He is not in touch with reality all the time. I really do think it could possibly be shown that he's mentally unstable.

[onenote]

24. Well, the ones that would have to say he's mentally unstable (if that standard applied)

would be his own appointees and what do you think the chances are that they would say, hey, I'm the secretary of this or that because a mentally unstable nutjob appointed me?

[Honeycombe8]

26. Well, no. It would be experts.

Just like if Reagan were removed because of Alzheimer's. It wouldn't be his cabinet that says, "It sure seems like he has Alzheimer's."

Even Reagan could perform some duties of office. What the 25th amendment may mean, and surely does, is that he cannot substantially perform those duties at all times. The need for a President to be reliable at all times is of utmost importance. When there really is a national emergency, the country needs to know that he'll be in touch with reality and able to perform at that time, at any time.

[onenote]

29. Who would pick these experts and under what authority?

The 25th amendment does provide that Congress could by law establish "such other body" to take the place of the cabinet in joining with the VP to notify Congress that the president is unable to discharge the duties and authorities of the presidency. Not only has Congress not done so, it is highly unlikely that they could ever decide on the make-up of such a "body". And if they did, Trump could and would veto the legislation (thereby demonstrating that he is not unable to discharge the duties and authorities of the presidency).

Heck, Trump's declaration of a national emergency, while a crock, is actually another example that he is able to discharge the duties and authorities of the office. It may be a bad decision, but it is a decision that he is authorized to make in the first instance, subject to Congressional, and ultimately judicial, review, much like many other actions that a president has the authority to take.

I'm curious what examples you have of the president failing to discharge his duties and authority under the constitution -- not examples where you don't like the way he has done so.

[Honeycombe8]

30. I don't know. It's never been done.

Merely declaring something does not mean performing the duties of the office.

It doesn't mean perform the duties on this day, but unable to on another day because he's in fantasy land.

[Oak2004]

31. Perhaps because it is worse than we know

that 45* is, in person, massively batshit crazy?

(Not anything I know, but the most likely explanation I can think of for DoJ discussing the 25th)

[Paladin]

12. Dershowitz is nothing more than a right-wing pimp.

Whatever status he once held as a constitutional scholar is long gone.

[NCjack]

16. STD45 has stage-4 syphilis of the brain. Let's give him a military parade at an army base

and A25 him.

[area51]

18. Trump is the only thing "despicable".

There, fixed it for ya, Der(p)showitz.

[sdfernando]

19. Umm....excuse me stupid mr. DershoSHITS

The framers of the constitution didn't have anything in mind regarding this....This and amendment...let me say that again slowly for your addled brain...A M E N D M E N T. The 25th to be exact.

"Congress approved the 25th Amendment on July 6, 1965, the States completed ratification by February 10, 1967, and President Lyndon Johnson certified the amendment on February 23, 1967."

I'm pretty sure that all of the framers of the U.S. Constitution were long dead by then.

[jgmiller]

25. Dershowitz is really sad but he's right for the wrong reason

As others have said the point of the 25th is physical or mental instability and is meant to be used in an emergency situation to essentially kick congress' butts in gear. Just because you can get the cabinet and the VP to agree to invoke the 25th does not mean that the president goes away. It was specifically written like this so that you couldn't have a coup, it's just a formalized version of someone screaming fire. From there congress has the power to determine if the president is competent to continue in office.

I have no problem with the FBI investigating a president to determine if he's been compromised or committed a crime, he's a citizen afterall and technically under the jurisditction of the FBI. However if they find such evidence the 25th is not the end result they would need to present it to congress and then congress could decide to impeach or not.

[KayF]

28. might make sense if McCabe were a Democrat

but he's a Republican.

As are Mueller and Comey.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. This is good: Keep thinking about the 25th amendment, Donnie.

But don't let it interfere with your executive time.

[Calista241]

33. I suspect this conversation is being made out to be more than it was.

By both sides. It was probably idle speculation that occurred before the real topic of the meeting began.

The 25th amendment solution does not work without the VP’s participation. And even then, the President has recourse to fight the process.