Trump quotes Alan Dershowitz saying consideration of 25th Amendment ‘despicable’

[j-mac]

So Russia has always been our enemy.....

Hmmmm....seems not when Obama was running against Romney....

Obama - "The 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back"



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[sangha]

Hmmmm....seems not when Obama was running against Romney....

Obama - "The 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back"



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

And not when Trump is president.

Your whataboutism just blew up in your face

 

[bubbabgone]

The 25th relates to incapacity to perform duties.
I believe the problem with McCabe invoking the 25th that Dershowitz was talking about was that the reasons McCabe gave in the interview seemed to center around the firing of Comey and Russian communication.
The things McCabe was talking about would be grounds for impeachment, not removal using the 25th.

 

[anatta]

Russia hostile because they prefered Trump to Hillary :rofl:

Russia has done much worse things and has always been our enemy since the end of WW2 but the democrats flip flop on the issue because of Trump is always a source of great hilarity

realpolitik would allow for managing the relationship, not mindles sanctions.
Russiaphobia has destroyed that ability

I'm sure you've noticed Xi and Putin have gotten really tight - Vostok 2018 wargames as an example

 

[Abbazorkzog]

realpolitik would allow for managing the relationship, not mindles sanctions.
Russiaphobia has destroyed that ability

I'm sure you've noticed Xi and Putin have gotten really tight - Vostok 2018 wargames as an example

Not to mention that (even as anti-establishment and ultranationalist sentiment surges in Ukraine against Poroshenko) the Ukrainians are still East-leaning as far as the overall country outside of Poroshenko's regime goes:

Ukraine’s path to NATO complicated by close ties to China

Kiev passed a new law that aims to push the country closer to Europe and Nato membership. But are deepening ties with Beijing – Moscow’s close military ally – pulling the country in a different direction?

On June 8, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued a statement saying they would together face the challenges of an increasingly unstable and uncertain world, deepening their cooperation on issues of “strategic stability”.

Some analysts feel China is acting out of self-interest in Ukraine but also serving – intentionally or not – as a proxy for Russia’s agenda.

So, yeah - just because Russia and Ukraine aren't "friends" any more, doesn't mean that Ukraine is any more of a friend to the West or any less corrupt than Russia. If these three countries felt any meaningful threat from NATO they would be shoulder-to-shoulder ready to fight at the turn of a screw. To think otherwise is naive folly. Any cross-borders disputes any where in the world right now PALE in comparison to the sweeping furor at the United States for its behavior over the past few decades.

Ever since this man got into the White House what little geopolitical capital we had has virtually all-but evaporated.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Please show us where the decision on whether an amendment is being used constitutionally falls on the executive to make - you know it does not - which is why you haven't been as quick to tell everyone how Trump arrived at the conclusion that it was.

Mind reading? Made up ideas as to what the text of the 25th actually says? Maybe the same way he came with the death penalty for innocent men in NYC or locking up Hillary without a trial having been had.

Lol, we get it - you are out of ideas - so you make non-existent precedent for how amendments may be applied - but ones that aren't listed in the amendments themselves - just Dershowitz ramblings.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45394.pdf

Section 4’s complexity and concern about its potential for misuse have raised questions among some observers that it could
be implemented for political purposes. During debate on the amendment, its authors and proponents largely rejected such
claims. They insisted the section was not intended to facilitate the removal of an unpopular or failed President, in support of
which they cited checks and balances incorporated in the amendment that were designed to prevent abuse of the procedure.
To date, Section 4 has not been implemented.

Its not just me, its the people that drafted the amendment. As usual you are going all arrogant when you don't have a damned clue.

 

[Deuce]

Disagreeing with the President on political issues or even committing crimes in office doesn't mean the remedy is the 25th amendment, the remedy is impeachment.

Utilizing the 25th requires 2/3rds of both houses to agree after you get a majority of the cabinet and the VP to state he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

Impeachment is the better remedy but that doesn't make the 25th amendment somehow unconstitutional.

If 2/3rds of both houses, the VP, and the majority of the cabinet all agree the president is unable to perform his duties, then he's unable to perform his duties.

 

[Deuce]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45394.pdf


Its not just me, its the people that drafted the amendment. As usual you are going all arrogant when you don't have a damned clue.

You're making an assumption that the motives are unscrupulous. "Facilitate the removal of an unpopular president" is a part you made up.

 

[anatta]

Not to mention that (even as anti-establishment and ultranationalist sentiment surges in Ukraine against Poroshenko) the Ukrainians are still East-leaning as far as the overall country outside of Poroshenko's regime goes:

Ukraine’s path to NATO complicated by close ties to China







So, yeah - just because Russia and Ukraine aren't "friends" any more, doesn't mean that Ukraine is any more of a friend to the West or any less corrupt than Russia. If these three countries felt any meaningful threat from NATO they would be shoulder-to-shoulder ready to fight at the turn of a screw. To think otherwise is naive folly. Any cross-borders disputes any where in the world right now PALE in comparison to the sweeping furor at the United States for its behavior over the past few decades.

Ever since this man got into the White House what little geopolitical capital we had has virtually all-but evaporated.

excellent post. I am working and will try to get back to it.

 

[Crovax]

So Russia has always been our enemy but they're not a hostile nation.

Great logic you got going on

Thats not what I said at all

 

[sangha]

Thats not what I said at all

I accept your surrender

 

[OpportunityCost]

You're making an assumption that the motives are unscrupulous. "Facilitate the removal of an unpopular president" is a part you made up.

Despite all the utterances to the contrary right?

The motives are political in nature not inability to do the job. You need to make the distinction between doing the job and doing the job the way progressives want it done.

 

[Hatuey]

:roll:

EVERYONE has a right to opine about what is or is not "Constitutional."

People in this Forum do it all the time when it comes to gun rights, free speech, religious freedom, etc., etc., etc.. That is all the President did in that tweet.

As I stated in my post you responded to, the idea that because someone does not agree with the policies of a sitting President and is striving to remove him/her as a result is NOT what the 25th Amendment was designed for.

As for "suspicions" of collusion or obstruction? That is what IMPEACHMENT was designed for. Read the Constitution.

As for determining what actually is or is not "Constitutional," we've given that power to the SCOTUS after Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

You have not refuted what I have said. You've simply hid behind the accusation that this is about opinions. It is not.

Not one of the restrictions listed by Dershowitz on the use of Section 4 is actually listed in the amendment. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Prove me wrong.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You have not refuted what I have said. You've simply hid behind the accusation that this is about opinions. It is not.

Not one of the restrictions listed by Dershowitz on the use of Section 4 is actually listed in the amendment. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Prove me wrong.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Well, there is the Report of the Miller Commission (1988):

Section 4. This provision involves a sick president who either refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section basically applies to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside. He or she may be stubborn, or be in the hands of a powerful staff or of a strong-willed spouse, the latter being Wilson's case. In that case, the presidential physician was Mrs. Wilson's witting accomplice. Before the 25 Amendment, there was no mechanism other than impeachment for dealing with an unfit president who would not resign, or who was not mentally capable of resigning his office. Impeachment, however, was designed to deal with high crimes and misdemeanors, not health problems. Section 4 has inspired much criticism because it opens a window for new and troubling scenarios.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=twentyfifth_amendment_reports

Then there is this CRS Report for Congress (1999):

Presidential Disability: An Overview... Section 4 is intended, as one source puts it, to provide for “a sick president who refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section was basically framed to apply to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside.”

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc//RS20260.pdf

Historically, the promulgation of the 25th Amendment began in 1956 thanks the "secret" heart attack President Eisenhower had. It then gained actual traction when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson became President and he had a heart attack (November 22, 1963) with no VP in office in case he passed away. The Senate began to look into it. In 1965 Congress began actively working on resolutions which eventually became the 25th Amendment. That's as far as I have gotten at this time with a cursory search, although I wish I could have found the various Congressional debates between 1956 and 1965 to give a firmer foundation.

The bottom line is that "Unable to perform the duties" originally referred to a medical problem of some kind.

 

[danarhea]

Oh...my...god...

What is worse is that people will defend him for saying it...

America is beginning to come to the realization that, in Nazi Germany, 1/3 of the population murdered another 1/3 of the population, while 1/3 of the population watched it happen and did nothing. We could be headed in that direction.

 

[MauiMan]

Yes it seems they are claiming that a candidate can break any laws he wants as long as he wins. How insane is that? The President is our servant and he serves at our pleasure. The Constitution provides many ways to remove a President for good reason. A criminal in that office can do immeasurable damage to the country. Personally I think Trumps's rambling mostly incoherent speech on Friday is a reason enough to consider him a candidate for the 25th amendment. I don't think I am alone in that thought either.

27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals conclude that “anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency.”

Read the book:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

[MauiMan]

If all you can do is attribute motive and make vague accusations. I'll just ask someone on the thread who doesn't want to keep running from the question.

How can the 25th amendment be justified in removing a sitting president?

Wikipedia has a good explanation:

Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[MauiMan]

Disagreeing with the President on political issues or even committing crimes in office doesn't mean the remedy is the 25th amendment, the remedy is impeachment.

Utilizing the 25th requires 2/3rds of both houses to agree after you get a majority of the cabinet and the VP to state he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.

Yep, it’s a high bar. No way it will work on Trump.

 

[Saladin4]

Alan Douchebag is still alive?............Damn

 

[iguanaman]

Hmmmm....seems not when Obama was running against Romney....

Obama - "The 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back"



Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

LOL Stop complaining that Putin fooled us by behaving like an angel while plotting our demise. He's a conniving, lying scumbag. Why do you think Trump admires him so much? Besides I thought you guys wanted us to give Russia a chance now? Trump sure does and says so every time it comes up. Obama tried that and was burned badly no doubt, but at least he levied heavy painful sanctions on Russia for Crimea to send a message to Putin. The problem is that Putin has been a very bad boy lately and we cannot deal with him in good faith until he admits his crimes against the U.S. elections and withdraws from Crimea. Until then we must do everything in our power to sanction him and cut him off from the rest of the world.

 

[MauiMan]

LOL Stop complaining that Putin fooled us by behaving like an angel while plotting our demise. He's a conniving, lying scumbag. Why do you think Trump admires him so much? Besides I thought you guys wanted us to give Russia a chance now? Trump sure does and says so every time it comes up. Obama tried that and was burned badly no doubt, but at least he levied heavy painful sanctions on Russia for Crimea to send a message to Putin. The problem is that Putin has been a very bad boy lately and we cannot deal with him in good faith until he admits his crimes against the U.S. elections and withdraws from Crimea. Until then we must do everything in our power to sanction him and cut him off from the rest of the world.

Putin was a KGB agent. He is very intelligent and good at what he does. Cunning, powerful, and no friend of the United States. Trump is no match for him, and should never meet alone with him.

 

[j-mac]

And not when Trump is president.

Your whataboutism just blew up in your face

How so?...hiding behind "whataboutism" as if all history before Jan. 20, 2017 is pathetically weak, and shows that you know your position won't hold to historical scrutiny....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

Impeachment is the better remedy but that doesn't make the 25th amendment somehow unconstitutional.

If 2/3rds of both houses, the VP, and the majority of the cabinet all agree the president is unable to perform his duties, then he's unable to perform his duties.

Do you really think that the 25th was envisioned to cover, or be used to remove a president you don't like?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[cabse5]

The language is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." A president compromised by a hostile foreign power would certainly fall into that bucket.

Yes it would. SIAP. Which president are you implying is compromised by a foreign power?

 

[j-mac]

27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals conclude that “anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency.”

Read the book:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Any credible mental health professional would never diagnose without meeting with a subject....you fall for hackery because it's what you want to believe...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk