• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    25th Amendment needs to start with the Vice President, so we know that’s not going to happen:

    Section 4

    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.

    • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      This seems like such a short-sighted design by our founding fathers and subsequent leaders when we look at it with today’s lens. I know they likely would have assumed that people would riot with pitchforks and torches of anyone engaged in corruption during their era, including having the support of the VP. I know the 25th amendment was a more recent addition (1967), but I’m surprised there weren’t more catching points for this written into the foundation.

      I guess they hoped we would never allow things to get this shitty.

      • Limonene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        The 25th wasn’t intended for illegal actions. It was for when the president has a stroke and goes comatose, or other forms of incapacitation.

        Impeachment is the constitution’s main way to get rid of a corrupt president.

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean, if the VP doesn’t want to take over, it doesn’t make sense to force the VP to take over, since if they weren’t willing to go against the president and use the 25th, it means they’d be doing the same thing as the president, so its pointless.

      • tomkatt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Bear in mind that in the early years of the USA, the vice president was generally the person who was running against the sitting President for the seat. It was another built in check to power, though unfortunately not codified. The idea of just picking a VP candidate came much later.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The 25th Amendment was ratified long after the 12th Amendment which changed how the VP got into office.

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not that much later. Jefferson was the third president, he’s the one who decided voters be damned he’s picking the VP.

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            Having a VP in opposition was a design flaw and a source of instability. It made sense to change it.

            Do you really want a system where, if a faction dislikes the president, all they have to do is assassinate him?

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          On the contrary, they assumed that grossly unfit morons would have mass appeal and that’s why the constitution has so many provisions to make sure that popular will is not reflected at the ballot box.

          They hoped that the rich would not elect a grossly unfit traitor, which all of history shows is a laughably stupid assumption.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          “We The People” only referred to white land owning men. Even with the expansions of reconstruction, women’s suffrage, and civil rights (all won by working class organization and opposition) our entire representative democracy has been designed to the benefit of capital owners. Neoliberalism just shifted that into overdrive.

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            The franchise has vastly expanded since then. There are other reasons for the current dysfunction.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The founders didn’t consider it at all, the 25th wasn’t added until 1967. Pre-Nixon even.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The 25th was put in to prevent the situation that occurred with Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke and couldn’t govern but who was not removed from office.

          The remedies for grossly unfit traitors were meant to be impeachment, or revolution.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why not? We all know Vance is pretending for the position. If he sees a real shot, he might take it.

      Nobody likes Trump as a person. They’re all just grifting.

      The trick is getting enough to turn at once, and getting them all to know that there’s enough. A dumb one might rat it out because of greed, but they should know that doesn’t work. If they’re in that position, there’s no further loyalty rewards. The best they can hope for is avoiding retribution, and that’s not even guaranteed.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The reason he picked Vance is because he knew there was no resistance there, he learned from Pence.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Vance is much less of a zombie than Pence. He’s actively evil, fanatical and not stupid.