The point is whether the 25th amendment should have been invoked.
If the conditions were met, then other past presidents doing the same thing just means the 25th amendment should have been invoked in those situations as well.
None of this has anything to do with the 25th Amendment. The 25th is the process for removing a president from office in the event of physical or mental disability to severe that the President can no longer carry out the duties of office.
Committing war crimes doesn’t trigger the 25th. Neither does breaking any other law. Those are what impeachment is for, and (ignoring the Supreme Court’s recent unlawful establishment of an elective absolute monarchy) enforcement of the law against the President, in those cases where there are criminal penalties.
Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.
Btw, as an outsider I’m pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet’s dementia would be impossible.
Yeah, the barrier to actually using the 25th is absurdly high, and a president with dementia could cling to office by the simple expedient of objecting to the finding of incapacity. The amendment regards that as sufficient evidence that the president can carry out his duties. And if a VP chose to protect an incapacitated president from removal from office, the process could be derailed that way, too.
As for rebutting Kreskin, I think I’m done attempting to reason with them. Instead, I’ll try teaching my dog to play chess, it’s more likely I’ll succeed at that.
The point is whether the 25th amendment should have been invoked.
If the conditions were met, then other past presidents doing the same thing just means the 25th amendment should have been invoked in those situations as well.
None of this has anything to do with the 25th Amendment. The 25th is the process for removing a president from office in the event of physical or mental disability to severe that the President can no longer carry out the duties of office.
Committing war crimes doesn’t trigger the 25th. Neither does breaking any other law. Those are what impeachment is for, and (ignoring the Supreme Court’s recent unlawful establishment of an elective absolute monarchy) enforcement of the law against the President, in those cases where there are criminal penalties.
Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.
Btw, as an outsider I’m pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet’s dementia would be impossible.
Yeah, the barrier to actually using the 25th is absurdly high, and a president with dementia could cling to office by the simple expedient of objecting to the finding of incapacity. The amendment regards that as sufficient evidence that the president can carry out his duties. And if a VP chose to protect an incapacitated president from removal from office, the process could be derailed that way, too.
As for rebutting Kreskin, I think I’m done attempting to reason with them. Instead, I’ll try teaching my dog to play chess, it’s more likely I’ll succeed at that.