Surely actually going after Obama would end Trumps presidency.
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
Surely actually going after Obama would end Trumps presidency.
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
I think you are referring to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. There are two steps to this
Step one: the VP along with the majority of the principle offers of the deparments of the executive branch or other body as Congress may provide can convey to the president pro tempore and Speaker of the House the president is no longer able to carry out his/her duties, the VP will immediately assume the responsibilities of the president.
However--and this is step two--if the president challenges that declaration, it can be referred to the congress, and if 2/3 of both houses agree, VP can continue to be the Acting President .
Note, in both instances, the president is not removed from office, only relieved of duties, the VP is just the Acting President during this time.
Section Four reads:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
I would agree. But “easier” and”much easier” aren’t the same thing either.
And practically speaking, it’s really only easier if a majority of the House is willing to hold hearings on impeachment, draft articles of impeachment, allow a vote on those articles and actually vote for impeachment. That isn’t the House we have right now, so any “easier” is purely theoretical
The reality is that the “easiness” of both impeachment and conviction on one hand and the Twenty-fifth Amendment on the other is very fact-situation dependent.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
And, the 25th does not remove a president, it just relieves the president of his/her duties, but he/she still retains the title. Two, even if the full congress decides to relieve the president of duties, the president can still appeal again at a later date.
A scenario say a certain president has a psychotic break, the VP and majority of the heads of the departments of the executive branch agree that president must be relieved of duties and they duly inform the President pro tempore and Speaker of the House of their decision, relieving the president of his duties. However, the president appeals to the full congress (steps in process acknowledged), after due diligence, both houses affirm the president is relieved of duties. A midterm election happens and the supermajorities of one or both houses are eliminated. He appeals again, congress cannot obtain the necessary votes, and he returns to the full powers of the office.
Comments
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
You are of course correct but one can wish
I think you are referring to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. There are two steps to this
Step one: the VP along with the majority of the principle offers of the deparments of the executive branch or other body as Congress may provide can convey to the president pro tempore and Speaker of the House the president is no longer able to carry out his/her duties, the VP will immediately assume the responsibilities of the president.
However--and this is step two--if the president challenges that declaration, it can be referred to the congress, and if 2/3 of both houses agree, VP can continue to be the Acting President .
Note, in both instances, the president is not removed from office, only relieved of duties, the VP is just the Acting President during this time.
Section Four reads:
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Smithsonian removes mentions of Trump's two impeachments from National Museum of American History
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
And practically speaking, it’s really only easier if a majority of the House is willing to hold hearings on impeachment, draft articles of impeachment, allow a vote on those articles and actually vote for impeachment. That isn’t the House we have right now, so any “easier” is purely theoretical
The reality is that the “easiness” of both impeachment and conviction on one hand and the Twenty-fifth Amendment on the other is very fact-situation dependent.
And, the 25th does not remove a president, it just relieves the president of his/her duties, but he/she still retains the title. Two, even if the full congress decides to relieve the president of duties, the president can still appeal again at a later date.
A scenario say a certain president has a psychotic break, the VP and majority of the heads of the departments of the executive branch agree that president must be relieved of duties and they duly inform the President pro tempore and Speaker of the House of their decision, relieving the president of his duties. However, the president appeals to the full congress (steps in process acknowledged), after due diligence, both houses affirm the president is relieved of duties. A midterm election happens and the supermajorities of one or both houses are eliminated. He appeals again, congress cannot obtain the necessary votes, and he returns to the full powers of the office.