Once House votes to impeach, should the President be suspended?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton continued to exercise full presidential powers after they were impeached. In many other countries, however, an impeached President is being suspended from power until either restored or removed (recently, we've seen this in Brazil and Romania). Sounds pretty proper to me.

[SteveRogers]

If the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet felt that it was in the interest of the country for the President to stand down pending the outcome of the Senate trial, they could invoke the 25th Amendment.

Probably not appropriate if the President is being impeached for perjury, campaign finance violations, etc. But if the President were being impeached for some kind of illegal military action that needed to be stopped promptly, then yes, a temporary invocation of the 25th could be appropriate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Absolutely not.  Even if the Senate was required to deal with the impeachment charge within a certain time or the President resumed authority, then all it would take for the House to single-handedly issue a de facto removal from office would be to continue bringing new charges at the expiration of each time period.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Absolutely not.  Even if the Senate was required to deal with the impeachment charge within a certain time or the President resumed authority, then all it would take for the House to single-handedly issue a de facto removal from office would be to continue bringing new charges at the expiration of each time period.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There should probably be some sort of determination if the house's prosecutors are likelier than not to succeed in getting a senate conviction, and if that assessment is that conviction is the likely outcome, then suspend the president pending the outcome of the actual trial.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Possibly have it followed up by the Senate issuing a vote of no-confidence in the Presidency, with the same margin needed as for conviction. If the vote of no-confidence passes prior to the trial, the President is temporarily stripped of the powers of office which pass to the Vice President. But an impeachment vote alone? No way.

[Politician]

Absolutely not.  Even if the Senate was required to deal with the impeachment charge within a certain time or the President resumed authority, then all it would take for the House to single-handedly issue a de facto removal from office would be to continue bringing new charges at the expiration of each time period.

[Cynthia]

Absolutely not.  Even if the Senate was required to deal with the impeachment charge within a certain time or the President resumed authority, then all it would take for the House to single-handedly issue a de facto removal from office would be to continue bringing new charges at the expiration of each time period.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Absolutely not.  Even if the Senate was required to deal with the impeachment charge within a certain time or the President resumed authority, then all it would take for the House to single-handedly issue a de facto removal from office would be to continue bringing new charges at the expiration of each time period.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Possibly have it followed up by the Senate issuing a vote of no-confidence in the Presidency, with the same margin needed as for conviction. If the vote of no-confidence passes prior to the trial, the President is temporarily stripped of the powers of office which pass to the Vice President. But an impeachment vote alone? No way.

This seems like a viable system.