I always thought the 25th Amendment came about because, thanks to advances in medicine, it was conceivable that a President could survive a JFK-type assassination attempt (it was proposed just over a year after the ghastliness in Dallas) but be in a constant vegetative state. Of course, given Trump's age and overall health, "constant vegetative state" may be on the menu before January 20, 2029.
otoh, toughing it out for the next 33 months might be the least bad option, because a President JD Vance scares the shit out of me.
Yes, I think you are correct. My understanding from Akhil Amar is that there were real worries after Kennedy’s assassination about what would have happened had he not been instantly killed, but instead been put into a coma or other vegetative state. Before the 25th amendment, there was no function by which a comatose president could be removed from office. Modern takes on the 25th amendment often ignore this.
The removal function is in place for a president who cannot protest. If the cabinet invoked the amendment to remove a president, but he was still conscious, he could easily reject them. That’s not something the writers of the amendment envisioned, and it would likely lead to a real constitutional crisis.
This is one of the reason that parliamentary systems are better than presidential ones. A PM losing parliamentary majority support is unfortunate, but quite normal. You just have new elections. It happens all the time. A president losing enough support to be removed from office after impeachment and conviction is such a huge failure that a political party could be risking complete electoral extinction if it happens. That's part of the reason it's never happened. We can look at all of American history and realize that this should have happened to at least one president in our history, but it hasn't happened. Meanwhile, a number of peer countries have sent a former leader to jail.
There has at times been the serious thought that we the people always have the power of recall. Perhaps it's time to just do that, to every member of Congress who has forgotten that they serve us. It's in here https://constitutioncenter.org/essays/the-consent-of-the-governed and I believe some related writeup as well, same site.
We don't need to wait upon their pleasure. And we shouldn't. That is a procedure for elected politicians to judge their peers, even if the voters don't mind the severe crimes. I am talking about the will of the people.
"The proponents of the new federal Constitution argued that the opponents of the Constitution had nothing to fear, for all parts of the new government, even appointed judges, were now agents or representatives of the people. The new federal government, said James Wison, was “purely democratical.” Although the new federal government outwardly resembled the traditional mixed government of the English constitution, in fact, said Wilson, “all authority of every kind is derived by REPRESENTATION from the PEOPLE and the DEMOCRATIC principle is carried into every part of the government.” Others presumed that this was true of all parts of the state governments as well.
"In America, the sovereign people were not eclipsed by representation. In Britain, once the people elected a Parliament, they ceased to exist legally or politically until the next election.
"By contrast, the American people never went out of existence. The people, the Federalists declared, always remained alive politically and legally, doling out to their various agents or representatives in the states and the federal government bits and pieces of their sovereign power, but never all of it. The consent that they loaned to their agents and representatives was always tentative, always partial, and could be taken back at any time."
Are you American? If not, please don't weigh in on this in any quelling manner whatsoever, because it's not your place and it's not possible to understand this setup from the outside. If you are, and you think you want to quell our rights, then I would like to know: did you go through college early enough to still receive the western civ/traditions course, or had your degree been Frankfurt Schooled by the time you went through? Even an Arts-Humanities-Science can recognize the negatives of that; the stereotype that all those degrees are anti-enlightenment is a Frankfurtism.
I always thought the 25th Amendment came about because, thanks to advances in medicine, it was conceivable that a President could survive a JFK-type assassination attempt (it was proposed just over a year after the ghastliness in Dallas) but be in a constant vegetative state. Of course, given Trump's age and overall health, "constant vegetative state" may be on the menu before January 20, 2029.
otoh, toughing it out for the next 33 months might be the least bad option, because a President JD Vance scares the shit out of me.
Yes, I think you are correct. My understanding from Akhil Amar is that there were real worries after Kennedy’s assassination about what would have happened had he not been instantly killed, but instead been put into a coma or other vegetative state. Before the 25th amendment, there was no function by which a comatose president could be removed from office. Modern takes on the 25th amendment often ignore this.
The removal function is in place for a president who cannot protest. If the cabinet invoked the amendment to remove a president, but he was still conscious, he could easily reject them. That’s not something the writers of the amendment envisioned, and it would likely lead to a real constitutional crisis.
This is one of the reason that parliamentary systems are better than presidential ones. A PM losing parliamentary majority support is unfortunate, but quite normal. You just have new elections. It happens all the time. A president losing enough support to be removed from office after impeachment and conviction is such a huge failure that a political party could be risking complete electoral extinction if it happens. That's part of the reason it's never happened. We can look at all of American history and realize that this should have happened to at least one president in our history, but it hasn't happened. Meanwhile, a number of peer countries have sent a former leader to jail.
There has at times been the serious thought that we the people always have the power of recall. Perhaps it's time to just do that, to every member of Congress who has forgotten that they serve us. It's in here https://constitutioncenter.org/essays/the-consent-of-the-governed and I believe some related writeup as well, same site.
there is a procedure for that, it's called impeachment
We don't need to wait upon their pleasure. And we shouldn't. That is a procedure for elected politicians to judge their peers, even if the voters don't mind the severe crimes. I am talking about the will of the people.
"The proponents of the new federal Constitution argued that the opponents of the Constitution had nothing to fear, for all parts of the new government, even appointed judges, were now agents or representatives of the people. The new federal government, said James Wison, was “purely democratical.” Although the new federal government outwardly resembled the traditional mixed government of the English constitution, in fact, said Wilson, “all authority of every kind is derived by REPRESENTATION from the PEOPLE and the DEMOCRATIC principle is carried into every part of the government.” Others presumed that this was true of all parts of the state governments as well.
"In America, the sovereign people were not eclipsed by representation. In Britain, once the people elected a Parliament, they ceased to exist legally or politically until the next election.
"By contrast, the American people never went out of existence. The people, the Federalists declared, always remained alive politically and legally, doling out to their various agents or representatives in the states and the federal government bits and pieces of their sovereign power, but never all of it. The consent that they loaned to their agents and representatives was always tentative, always partial, and could be taken back at any time."
Are you American? If not, please don't weigh in on this in any quelling manner whatsoever, because it's not your place and it's not possible to understand this setup from the outside. If you are, and you think you want to quell our rights, then I would like to know: did you go through college early enough to still receive the western civ/traditions course, or had your degree been Frankfurt Schooled by the time you went through? Even an Arts-Humanities-Science can recognize the negatives of that; the stereotype that all those degrees are anti-enlightenment is a Frankfurtism.
i am a us citizen. please identify the actual mechanism by which you expect this to happen.
No you're not.