Support NeoGAF

[BlackLagoon]

I realize that people really, really hate Trump and for good reason, but bills like this have the massive potential to be abused.

Any time the other party controls Congress they will be tempted to use this rule. The impeachment rules have a higher bar and that's been abused in modern times.

Well, it would be defacto parliamentarism. Though this is how early parliamentary rule came to be - the elected legislature simply decided to take power over the executive (though in those cases it was generally away from an unelected monarch.)

That said, as pointed out earlier, the constitution provides no other way for congress to remove the president other than impeachment. This oversight committee could only ask the vice-president and cabinet to remove president, they would have no power to do so themselves. Anything more would presumably be struck down by the supreme court.

 

[JoeyJungle]

The floodgates opened when R nuked the philibuster for the SCOTUS.

I think we are only going to see more rule changes and hardline tactics like this from here on out and I welcome it.

Nah man, it was when R's refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland's nomination.

I realize that people really, really hate Trump and for good reason, but bills like this have the massive potential to be abused.

Any time the other party controls Congress they will be tempted to use this rule. The impeachment rules have a higher bar and that's been abused in modern times.

That's not true, the 25th amendment is a borderline impossible method of removal unless the president is incapacitated for a large amount of time (ie coma/stroke/etc, not going under for surgeries).

 

[BlackLagoon]

iirc it requires the consent of the President unless he's incapacitated. The only way to overrule is with the VP and all cabinet members iirc (could be a supermajority of the cabinet? I can't recall).

basically a pointless bill, impeachment is the only feasible way to remove Trump.

No, basically if the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet agrees, they send a declaration to congress that the president is unfit, at which point the vice-president takes over. Then the president can choose to respond (if able) and declare to congress that he is indeed fit, at which point if the vice-president doesn't back down, it goes to congress which can then decide to permanently remove the president with a 2/3 majority in both houses.

 

[Dead Man]

The Vice President plus the majority of the Cabinet or any other body the Congress chooses. The logic is that the VIce President is the next in the chain of command, so he needs to be on board with the whole thing.

But that doesn't follow logically at all. Sounds more like a holdover from when the VP was the bloke with the second highest number of votes.

 

[rambis]

iirc it requires the consent of the President unless he's incapacitated. The only way to overrule is with the VP and all cabinet members iirc (could be a supermajority of the cabinet? I can't recall).

basically a pointless bill, impeachment is the only feasible way to remove Trump.

From the article

The section also permits “such other body as Congress may by law provide

The whole point of this bill is that the amendment almost explicitly gives congress the abilty to put together a panel along with the VP and majority of the cabinet.

I think the writers have a good constitutional basis for the bill, its the language that may be the sticking point.

 

[JoeyJungle]

No, basically if the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet agrees, they send a declaration to congress that the president is unfit, at which point the vice-president takes over. Then the president can choose to respond (if able) and declare to congress that he is indeed fit, at which point if the vice-president doesn't back down, it goes to congress which can then decide to permanently remove the president with a 2/3 majority in both houses.

Thanks, I couldn't remember the details off the top of my head. But yeah, that's such an unlikely scenario without the pres being incapacitated or trying to fire nukes for no reason. Impeachment is the only feasible way unless circumstances obviously require the immediate removal of the pres.

 

[Mimosa97]

I think this would set a terrible precedent. Trump is a probably the worst american president of all time but being incompetent shouldn't mean that congress gets to take power from the duly elected president. It's a slippery slope.

Impeaching the guy for his ties with Russia is one thing but using a dubious psychatric diagnostic to remove him is undemocratic imo.

 

[Zolo]

I think this would set a terrible precedent. Trump is a probably the worst american president of all time but being incompetent shouldn't mean that congress gets to take power from the duly elected president. It's a slippery slope.

Impeaching the guy for his ties with Russia is one thing but using a dubious psychatric diagnostic to remove him is undemocratic imo.

What if we take another national vote to impeach him?

 

[Speevy]

I think this would set a terrible precedent. Trump is a probably the worst american president of all time but being incompetent shouldn't mean that congress gets to take power from the duly elected president. It's a slippery slope.

Impeaching the guy for his ties with Russia is one thing but using a dubious psychatric diagnostic to remove him is undemocratic imo.

It would set a wonderful precedent. It would mean we have standards for executing the job below which you don't get to have it.

 

[Raylan Targaryen]

Gives too much power to congress, republicans will gladly take this and let the dems get one win

In the future if dems ever get a president this congressional committee will deem them unfit

 

[Stinkles]

Even Trump's fans should be concerned for his state of mind. None of this behavior is normal or rational. If you had a relative doing that stuff you'd probably try to get them help.

In the future if dems ever get a president this congressional committee will deem them unfit

True, so it would behoove them to add objective criteria like a basic mental health check. I doubt I'm being controversial when I say that Trump might literally not pass that test if it were for employment somewhere else. But I agree it might be a disastrous precedent.

 

[WiiredShawn]

I think this would set a terrible precedent. Trump is a probably the worst american president of all time but being incompetent shouldn't mean that congress gets to take power from the duly elected president. It's a slippery slope.

Impeaching the guy for his ties with Russia is one thing but using a dubious psychatric diagnostic to remove him is undemocratic imo.

The President's incompetence could literally kill thousands upon thousands of people.

On some level, we could argue that Congress has a duty to its constituents to remove a president who is actively trying to kill them through his incompetence or mental disabilities.

The oversight committee just needs to set a high bar for its conclusions, e.g., multiple expert opinions should be mandatory, and their selection should be bi-partisan.

I mean, it's that, or we establish a mechanism for the American public to remove a president through a substantial majority vote. But that will never happen, so Congressional oversight is the next best thing.

It's clear that we need something as a back-up to impeachment. It's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a grossly unqualified president.

 

[andythinkpad]

Any bill that causes more meltdown tweet is a good bill.

 

[BlastProcessing]

But that doesn't follow logically at all. Sounds more like a holdover from when the VP was the bloke with the second highest number of votes.

Nope. The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967.

 

[Marvie_3]

I realize that people really, really hate Trump and for good reason, but bills like this have the massive potential to be abused.

Any time the other party controls Congress they will be tempted to use this rule. The impeachment rules have a higher bar and that's been abused in modern times.

Exactly. We would have heard about this every day if it was around during Obama's terms.

 

[rambis]

Gives too much power to congress, republicans will gladly take this and let the dems get one win

In the future if dems ever get a president this congressional committee will deem them unfit

Then the President can declare himself fit and they would need 2/3rds of both houses to remove him. This is a higher standard than impeachment.

In essence, this gives congress equal footing in making a determination along with the VP and the Cabinet. The Amendment already gave them the authority for this.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

It's a bold strategy Cotton.

Also, you shouln't post full articles. Good writers deserve their clicks.

Bold and risky as we head into midterms.