• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The design seems to be to prevent a single person going rogue and doing whatever. Not designed for when someone has won elections and start damaging the country.

        All the nonsense of “Republic is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule and not good for minorities” seems to no longer work.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          By modern standards, absolutely not. By the standards of the time, they were pretty radical. Part of why France was a major ally during the revolutionary war.

          Unlike all the modern gooch sniffers who treat the founding fathers as infallible and the last word on everything. Including modern issues they could have never imagined. The founding fathers knew their constitution and laws were never perfect. And would likely need updating every 20 to 50 years. They didn’t fail us. We failed them in many ways however. We allowed those who amassed power to only amass more power. And put up roadblocks to any meaningful change in most instances. Which is why it was so hard to get things like civil rights or women’s suffrage. Nearly impossible to get anything at all today. Because it does not serve the entrenched wealthy and Powerful. And your average man is so uninformed that you really don’t know what’s going on or who the actual enemy is.

      • tomkatt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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.

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

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

      • Limonene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.