The 25th amendment was created in case of a president that becomes unfit and unable to govern. It clarified that the succession of a president would occur if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet agrees to his/her instability. The writers of the amendment stated that one of the hardest parts of the amendment was, “What do you do with a disabled president who doesn’t know he’s disabled or accept it?” In fact, there is no real answer to this question as the amendment is written vaguely because there are so many things that could happen to a president. When it comes to the question on Trump’s ability to be president, many of the writers have said that “Donald Trump is unfit to be president — but he is not unable. In fact, he’s very able to carry out all of the terrible things he promised he would do” In our US government class, we will study the constitution and amendmendments that govern our lives. One of the most recurring problems in the US government is how the constitution and written legislation is interpreted, and this article tries to look into the writers’ interpretation of that amendment.
- Even though the writers think that Donald Trump does not fit the criteria for being removed from office, do you think he should?
- Was the 25th amendment more about presidents being physically unable to rule or about mentally unfit?
- What is the process of replacing the president according to the 25th amendment?
Joshua Ishimoto
ReplyDelete1. No, even though it has become apparent to the majority of Americans that President Trump has neither the discipline nor attitude to serve as president, the 25th amendment should not be evoked. Doing so would only create a constitutional crisis. Afterall, the wording of the 25th Amendment would so vague that it couldn't help determine if Trump was fit or unfit for the office of presidency. The public and constitutional lawyers would only agree that if the President was physically unable to do the job either from assassination or health concern, then the Vice President would have the responsibility to take over the role. The scenario were a president would be removed on the basis of his or her mental inability to fulfil the minmal duties of the office would elicit a national crisis. Indeed, which body of lawmakers or civil servants is to decide if a person is mentally capable enough to meet the minimal obligations of the Presidency. The office is of course a rather important one and removing the President from it on the basis that he or she is not making the right decisions(furthermore, define "right decisions") might not seem at all legitimate to the President's supporters. In the end, at much as a negative impact the current President is having on the nation, removal on the basis of mental ability from the highest office in the country would undoubtedly cause a breakdown in executive power and in the federal government itself.
2. Overall the 25th Amendment is not particularly clear on whether it specifying inability to fulfill the office of presidency. One leans toward it defining inability as physical inaptitude, but not with complete confidence. While the amendment makes clear the procedures needed to be taken by the Vice President to assume the presidency at the exiting of the current president from it, it does not really define when a commander in chief is capable or not of fulfilling his job.
3. According to the 25th Amendment there are multiple ways of replacing the president. If the president resigns or dies then the Vice President simply become president. if the president declares himself unable to fulfill the role of the office then the Vice President becomes Acting President, which means that he will preform al the essential duties of the presidency but technically still not be the president. The President would has declared him or herself unable to be commander in chief is therefore technically still president, just without any obligations. In Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, if, and only if, the Vice President and majority of the principle officers of the executive department declare the President incapable of caring out the duties of the office then the VP would acting President. If the president says him or herself capable but the VP and officers argue to the contrary then the Congress must decide within 21 days who is right. A 2/3rd vote is needed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate to rule in favor of the VP and the officers and make VP the Acting President. Ergo, even if Section 4 is evoked by VP Pence and the majority of cabinet members and is affirmed by both Houses of Congress, President Trump would still be the president, just then without any power.
I agree with Josh on this one. Although the political beliefs of the president do not necessarily align with my own, he did win the electoral college, which is supposed to act as a mechanism, a thermometer if you will, of the political opinions of the American people and therefore has been rightly chosen to president of the United States. Nonetheless, personally I would like for him to be removed from office and replaced with a leader who aligns more closely to my own beliefs. However, the removal of Donald Trump from office would result in the ascension of Mike Pence to power, which would result in an even farther rightward shift in the direction of the White House on the scale of the nationś political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThe main focus of the 25th Amendment was to account for physical ailments that would lead to a president’s ability to lead (e.g. - life-threatening disease, degrading mental disorders, etc). The wording of this question is slightly skewed because someone can be mentally unable to rule, not merely unfit. The issue of removing a president from office, according to the constitution and overall function of the United States Democratic system, would require a president to be mentally unable to rule in order to remove them from office.
First, congress would have to determine whether the president was unfit or actually unable to lead the nation. Second, the Vice President would have to accept the nomination as the replacement to the president of the United States.
Regan Fair
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that Trump has done a lot of bad and foolish things for our country, I don't necessarily think that he is mentally unstable or unfit to run this country. He doesn't have any prominent health concerns and he is mentally stable enough to perform basic presidential tasks.
The main focus of the 25th Amendment is being able to remove a president if they are physically unfit for the job. I think it can be invoked for mental ailments, but mental instability is a lot more subjective and trying to remove a president for it would cause a lot of debate and controversy, as it is doing now.
In order to remove a president from office using the 25th Amendment, the Vice President and Congress would have to agree that the current president was unfit for the job. Then, the Vice President would take the role of president.
ReplyDeleteTrump may not do things that many people agree with but he is who American voted for. It does not seem right to impeach someone who is not unable to run the country and was fairly elected because it would undermine our democracy. Trump should only be removed from office if he fits the description lined out in the 25th Amendment, which he does not because he is mentally capable.
The 25th amendment more so describes a president physically unable to rule, a president who can no longer rule due to something stopping him from ruling. Although the 25th Amendment is vague, it is a little harder to judge if someone is mentally unfit for the job, which means it was probably geared towards physical incapabilities.
The replacement of a president in office under the 25th Amendment would require approval from the vice president and majority of the cabinet. The VP would then replace the President.
Tanya Mir:
ReplyDelete1.I believe that if the members of Trump's cabinet see it fit to invoke the 25th amendment, then they have every right to do so. Whether or not this considered ethical is another discussion, but considering the fact that many of these members have experienced backgrounds in government and Trump doesn't, I would trust their judgement over Trump's even if I disagree with their beliefs. Trump did appoint these officials, and if they deem it fit to revoke his executive privilege then I would stand with their judgement.
2. The 25th amendment was more about physically barriers rather than intellectual or mental differences, but in the case of Trump it seems reasonable to question his ability to serve regarding many of recent events which have occurred during his administration.
3. The replacement would require a majority of the cabinet to decide if the president is unfit to serve, including the VP.
1. I agree with the writers that “Donald Trump is unfit to be president — but he is not unable", so he does not fit the criteria to be removed from office. He makes extremely rash decisions, but he is still technically mentally and physically able to carry out the duties of the presidency.
ReplyDelete2. The 25th amendment is about a President being unfit for office, and it is much easier and more objective to tell whether a president is physically able to carry out their duties, whereas mental unfitness is very subjective and biased. So, I think the 25th amendment concerns the President's physical, not mental, fitness.
If the President resigns, the VP becomes President. However, if he does not, a majority of cabinet members and two-thirds of both the House and the Senate are required to label the VP the acting president.
1. The writers are correct because there is not enough evidence and information to remove him from office but he is unable to run our country so that we fix some of the problems that the U.S faces because of his beliefs.
ReplyDelete2. The 25th amendment is more about what makes the President unable to continue to rule if he crosses a line. It is too opinionated to remove a president for being mentally unfit for the role because there will be bias in terms of what he wants compared to what others wants (democrats would obviously not want him). It is more geared to what the President's power allows the current President to do in terms of actions.
3. A replacement would require the majority vote to decide if the President is unfit to serve. Not needed if the President resigns
I believe there is a solid system in place already. If the branches decide to remove Trump, I believe that is for the best. As the article stated, it is unlikely. And thus, I think my personal opinion is not as important.
ReplyDeleteThe 25th amendment was created after the assassination of JFK. Congress worried that if Johnson fell ill, there would be too much confusion as to who got power. And thus, they created the amendment.
What is the process of replacing the president according to the 25th amendment?
The process includes VP and majority of the cabinet to write a declaration of the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House that the President is unable to discharge his powers and duties.
1. No, I do not believe Trump should be removed from office using the 25th Amendment. I agree with the argument presented by the men who helped write the amendment, that the amendment is made for presidents unable to fill their duties, not unfit to. In the end, the question of fitness is a political judgement, and politics should be no reason to remove a president, just his health.
ReplyDelete2. As stated above, the 25th Amendment was definitely intended to address a president's physical inability to hold office. During the time when the amendment was written, it was health issues that afflicted president's such as Eisenhower and Wilson that spurred the writing of the amendment. Mental stability is a lot more subjective, and I don't think the amendment was made on the grounds of mental health because it would make it somewhat easier to remove a president from office then.
3. The process involves the vice president and a majority of cabinet agreeing that president is unable to fulfill the duties and powers of his office. The vice president would then replace the president.
1. I do not believe Trump should be removed from office this early on into his first term. Although the policies he has made may not be agreeable with every american, he hasn't done anything that hurts the country as a whole dramatically. I personally don't agree with some of his policies, but I think removing him at this time will create a lot of negative publicity not only for the government, but America as a whole.
ReplyDelete2. I believe it revolves more around being mentally unfit to rule. As seen in FDR's presidency, he was technically physically disabled yet he was still able to make policies and create a legacy that we now see as one of the best Presidents to date. Agreeing or disagreeing with someone shouldn't be on the basis of discriminating against them because of their physical capabilities, rather its their thoughts and mental state.
3. In order to remove the president, the cabinet and VP would have to agree that he/she is unfit for duty. This would then lead to the removal of the current president and the Vice President would be the first in line to step in.
1. Although things have changed since this post, I believe that currently Trump does fit the criteria for being removed from office. However I do not think that he should because I do not see any benefit in doing so, mainly because of the backlash.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the 25th amendment is intentionally vague because it truly is both. If, for any reason, legal, mental, or physical, the president is truly unable to fulfill his duties as President of the United States of America, then the 25th amendment allows for the President to be removed from office.
3. The 25th amendment provides a path to removing the president from office where if the Vice President along with a majority of cabinet leaders declare that the President is unfit to lead.
ReplyDeleteEven though the writers think that Donald Trump does not fit the criteria for being removed from office, do you think he should?
I do think that Trump still does not fit the criteria for being removed from office. We have continually heard talks of impeaching/removing trump from office, yet I believe that no evidence provided has yet been substantial. I believe that if/when there is substantial evidence that Trump fits the criteria, it will constantly be reported and discussed in America.
Was the 25th amendment more about presidents being physically unable to rule or about mentally unfit?
The 25th amendment was written to serve the purpose of protecting against physical ailments, such as that of Woodrow Wilson during the end of his presidency, and was meant for conditions that rendered the president physically unable to work. I don't think it accounted much in the way of mental disorders, however, I am fairly sure that they did keep blatant serious mental disorders in mind. However, I dont think that those who drafted the amendment really thought to tackle problems with a Trump-esque character.
What is the process of replacing the president according to the 25th amendment?
The process, that was established by John Tyler's succession into office from vice president, would be that the vice president takes over.
1. I do not think Trump should not be removed from office. Although he has hurt America's reputation internationally, he has not done anything that is drastically harmful enough to be removed from office.
ReplyDelete2. I believe the 25th Amendment is more about presidents being physically unfit to rule. Presidents such as FDR and Wilson had health complications, which the 25th Amendment would help someone rule in their place while they are debilitated.
3. To replace the president, the Vice President and cabinet must agree that the president is disabled, then the president would be removed from office and the Vice President would take his place.