This 25th Amendment "Cabinet removes the President" loophole

[StateBoiler]

This discussion is only for the future timeframe of this country beginning on January 20th, 2021.

Should the Cabinet being able to remove the President outside of obvious things like coma, stroke be a thing? The authors of the Amendment clearly did not mean it for such use.

[brucejoel99]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit, even if it's not for something as obvious as, say, JFK surviving his assassination but with severe brain damage (which was the amendment framers' intent for the section). The text clearly permits it if the VP, a majority of the Cabinet, & - in time - 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress agree to do so, & despite the intent of the section's framers having been for coma-like situations, circumstances can change, & it isn't unreasonable to believe that a developed ineptitude is an acceptable reason to involuntarily declare the chief executive incapacitated.

[StateBoiler]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

[SteveRogers]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

Well that’s why the 25th still requires Congress to take action, with a two-thirds majority in both houses, in order to make the removal long-lasting. So an ambitious VP can’t just use it to stage a coup if he disagrees with the President. But in an emergency where there’s no time for a formal impeachment trial, the 25th absolutely makes sense as a temporary stopgap measure.

[StateBoiler]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

Well that’s why the 25th still requires Congress to take action, with a two-thirds majority in both houses, in order to make the removal long-lasting. So an ambitious VP can’t just use it to stage a coup if he disagrees with the President. But in an emergency where there’s no time for a formal impeachment trial, the 25th absolutely makes sense as a temporary stopgap measure.

They can create whatever rules they want, like the Senate just did with setting up different rules for challenging Pennsylvania's votes (no debate, up/down vote) to Arizona's (debate, then vote).  

If the Congress is not willing to do impeachment for cause, how are you going to get two-thirds of the House (a higher standard than is required for impeachment) plus two-thirds of the Senate to agree to the Cabinet removing the president in what is de jure cause-less but is de facto for cause. The problem here is one of cowardice and/or laziness. The Republican lawmaker today calling for the 25th to be invoked. F#ck off dude. If you actually want this to occur instead of just blustering hot air, there's a clear method for that to take place THAT ACTUALLY INVOLVES YOU. Congressional lawmakers, including Schumer, are calling for the executive branch to have the initiative to remove the president for cause, not them. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is a handoff power that Congress would never agree to in any other circumstance. The House is in Democratic hands. They already pushed an impeachment with zero Republican support before while this one probably would have some, so that's not an excuse.

But let's talk future hypothetical invocations of the 25th Amendment, Section 4, for non-medical reasons. Congressmen have no business pressuring the Cabinet to do this because that is passing off responsibility, and if Congress is not willing to impeach and convict for cause, the Cabinet shouldn't either. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation have important roles in government, this is not one of them.

[LBJer]

The authors of the Amendment clearly did not mean it for such use.

No, but they never imagined someone like Donald Trump being president either.

[Brother Jonathan]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

Well that’s why the 25th still requires Congress to take action, with a two-thirds majority in both houses, in order to make the removal long-lasting. So an ambitious VP can’t just use it to stage a coup if he disagrees with the President. But in an emergency where there’s no time for a formal impeachment trial, the 25th absolutely makes sense as a temporary stopgap measure.

They can create whatever rules they want, like the Senate just did with setting up different rules for challenging Pennsylvania's votes (no debate, up/down vote) to Arizona's (debate, then vote).  

If the Congress is not willing to do impeachment for cause, how are you going to get two-thirds of the House (a higher standard than is required for impeachment) plus two-thirds of the Senate to agree to the Cabinet removing the president in what is de jure cause-less but is de facto for cause. The problem here is one of cowardice and/or laziness. The Republican lawmaker today calling for the 25th to be invoked. F#ck off dude. If you actually want this to occur instead of just blustering hot air, there's a clear method for that to take place THAT ACTUALLY INVOLVES YOU. Congressional lawmakers, including Schumer, are calling for the executive branch to have the initiative to remove the president for cause, not them. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is a handoff power that Congress would never agree to in any other circumstance. The House is in Democratic hands. They already pushed an impeachment with zero Republican support before while this one probably would have some, so that's not an excuse.

But let's talk future hypothetical invocations of the 25th Amendment, Section 4, for non-medical reasons. Congressmen have no business pressuring the Cabinet to do this because that is passing off responsibility, and if Congress is not willing to impeach and convict for cause, the Cabinet shouldn't either. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation have important roles in government, this is not one of them.

Well, for starters, there is a difference between rulings governing debate, which was yesterday was dispensed within the Senate on the Pennsylvania question because no one wanted to speak, and Constitutionally mandated votes and actions. I mean the Senate didn't change its rules to go straight to a vote on PA, it just didn't have anyone wishing to speak (Hawley noted as much when discussing the Arizona objection), but even if there were a rule change, that would be very different from ignoring a Constitutional requirement to vote to uphold a 25th Amendment removal. So really Congress would be forced to act in any case where the President was being removed (unless they were incapacitated, in a coma or something like that and thus unable to transmit their to Congress their desire to return to the office) and the 25th Amendment would create an even higher burden to clear than impeachment as it does require 2/3rds in the House and the Senate. So I think it unlikely that the Cabinet will be removing the President on policy grounds any time soon, and unless they did so very near the end of his term I doubt that such an attempt would keep him out of the office for very long provided 2/3rds of Congress were not incredibly hostile to him (and in f they were, impeachment likely could have been pursued at some point instead). It's also important to note that it would be an affirmative vote approving of the Vice President and Cabinet's actions at that point, so if the Senate or House didn't hold a vote on the matter in 21 days, then the President would resume the office.

It's also not just a majority of the Cabinet, but a majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President that have to agree. So the refusal of the Vice President to approve the attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment would be enough to stop it.

[StateBoiler]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

Well that’s why the 25th still requires Congress to take action, with a two-thirds majority in both houses, in order to make the removal long-lasting. So an ambitious VP can’t just use it to stage a coup if he disagrees with the President. But in an emergency where there’s no time for a formal impeachment trial, the 25th absolutely makes sense as a temporary stopgap measure.

They can create whatever rules they want, like the Senate just did with setting up different rules for challenging Pennsylvania's votes (no debate, up/down vote) to Arizona's (debate, then vote).  

If the Congress is not willing to do impeachment for cause, how are you going to get two-thirds of the House (a higher standard than is required for impeachment) plus two-thirds of the Senate to agree to the Cabinet removing the president in what is de jure cause-less but is de facto for cause. The problem here is one of cowardice and/or laziness. The Republican lawmaker today calling for the 25th to be invoked. F#ck off dude. If you actually want this to occur instead of just blustering hot air, there's a clear method for that to take place THAT ACTUALLY INVOLVES YOU. Congressional lawmakers, including Schumer, are calling for the executive branch to have the initiative to remove the president for cause, not them. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is a handoff power that Congress would never agree to in any other circumstance. The House is in Democratic hands. They already pushed an impeachment with zero Republican support before while this one probably would have some, so that's not an excuse.

But let's talk future hypothetical invocations of the 25th Amendment, Section 4, for non-medical reasons. Congressmen have no business pressuring the Cabinet to do this because that is passing off responsibility, and if Congress is not willing to impeach and convict for cause, the Cabinet shouldn't either. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation have important roles in government, this is not one of them.

Well, for starters, there is a difference between rulings governing debate, which was yesterday was dispensed within the Senate on the Pennsylvania question because no one wanted to speak, and Constitutionally mandated votes and actions. I mean the Senate didn't change its rules to go straight to a vote on PA, it just didn't have anyone wishing to speak (Hawley noted as much when discussing the Arizona objection), but even if there were a rule change, that would be very different from ignoring a Constitutional requirement to vote to uphold a 25th Amendment removal. So really Congress would be forced to act in any case where the President was being removed (unless they were incapacitated, in a coma or something like that and thus unable to transmit their to Congress their desire to return to the office) and the 25th Amendment would create an even higher burden to clear than impeachment as it does require 2/3rds in the House and the Senate. So I think it unlikely that the Cabinet will be removing the President on policy grounds any time soon, and unless they did so very near the end of his term I doubt that such an attempt would keep him out of the office for very long provided 2/3rds of Congress were not incredibly hostile to him (and in f they were, impeachment likely could have been pursued at some point instead). It's also important to note that it would be an affirmative vote approving of the Vice President and Cabinet's actions at that point, so if the Senate or House didn't hold a vote on the matter in 21 days, then the President would resume the office.

It's also not just a majority of the Cabinet, but a majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President that have to agree. So the refusal of the Vice President to approve the attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment would be enough to stop it.

Okay on the Pennsylvania/Arizona thing, but they still set rules for whatever the hell they want. If they want to waive the trial, wave the committee hearing, just have an up/down vote, and boom, Trump's impeached/convicted, they can. They just vote for it to do so. Hell, they could do it viva voce I imagine.

But we have Congressmen and Senators here asking the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President from power. Remove Trump from the situation, let's say we are in the year 2062 and random Congressman John Blonne from Wisconsin calls for the Cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove the President from power for cause, instead of Blonne submitting articles of impeachment for cause in the House. This is from a constitutional law perspective ridiculous. Congressmen have no business making even the request to the Cabinet first for separation of powers but more importantly because there's a constitutionally mandated way that exists for them to remove the President if they so desire. It's the equivalent of calling your neighbor and telling him to come over and change the TV channel on your TV when the remote control is in your hand.

[Brother Jonathan]

Whether you're a proponent of Scalia's textualism or Breyer's pragmatic constitutionalism, the obvious answer is that, yes, the Cabinet is able to invoke Section 4 for whatever purpose it deems fit

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

Well that’s why the 25th still requires Congress to take action, with a two-thirds majority in both houses, in order to make the removal long-lasting. So an ambitious VP can’t just use it to stage a coup if he disagrees with the President. But in an emergency where there’s no time for a formal impeachment trial, the 25th absolutely makes sense as a temporary stopgap measure.

They can create whatever rules they want, like the Senate just did with setting up different rules for challenging Pennsylvania's votes (no debate, up/down vote) to Arizona's (debate, then vote).  

If the Congress is not willing to do impeachment for cause, how are you going to get two-thirds of the House (a higher standard than is required for impeachment) plus two-thirds of the Senate to agree to the Cabinet removing the president in what is de jure cause-less but is de facto for cause. The problem here is one of cowardice and/or laziness. The Republican lawmaker today calling for the 25th to be invoked. F#ck off dude. If you actually want this to occur instead of just blustering hot air, there's a clear method for that to take place THAT ACTUALLY INVOLVES YOU. Congressional lawmakers, including Schumer, are calling for the executive branch to have the initiative to remove the president for cause, not them. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is a handoff power that Congress would never agree to in any other circumstance. The House is in Democratic hands. They already pushed an impeachment with zero Republican support before while this one probably would have some, so that's not an excuse.

But let's talk future hypothetical invocations of the 25th Amendment, Section 4, for non-medical reasons. Congressmen have no business pressuring the Cabinet to do this because that is passing off responsibility, and if Congress is not willing to impeach and convict for cause, the Cabinet shouldn't either. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation have important roles in government, this is not one of them.

Well, for starters, there is a difference between rulings governing debate, which was yesterday was dispensed within the Senate on the Pennsylvania question because no one wanted to speak, and Constitutionally mandated votes and actions. I mean the Senate didn't change its rules to go straight to a vote on PA, it just didn't have anyone wishing to speak (Hawley noted as much when discussing the Arizona objection), but even if there were a rule change, that would be very different from ignoring a Constitutional requirement to vote to uphold a 25th Amendment removal. So really Congress would be forced to act in any case where the President was being removed (unless they were incapacitated, in a coma or something like that and thus unable to transmit their to Congress their desire to return to the office) and the 25th Amendment would create an even higher burden to clear than impeachment as it does require 2/3rds in the House and the Senate. So I think it unlikely that the Cabinet will be removing the President on policy grounds any time soon, and unless they did so very near the end of his term I doubt that such an attempt would keep him out of the office for very long provided 2/3rds of Congress were not incredibly hostile to him (and in f they were, impeachment likely could have been pursued at some point instead). It's also important to note that it would be an affirmative vote approving of the Vice President and Cabinet's actions at that point, so if the Senate or House didn't hold a vote on the matter in 21 days, then the President would resume the office.

It's also not just a majority of the Cabinet, but a majority of the Cabinet and the Vice President that have to agree. So the refusal of the Vice President to approve the attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment would be enough to stop it.

Okay on the Pennsylvania/Arizona thing, but they still set rules for whatever the hell they want. If they want to waive the trial, wave the committee hearing, just have an up/down vote, and boom, Trump's impeached/convicted, they can. They just vote for it to do so. Hell, they could do it viva voce I imagine.

But we have Congressmen and Senators here asking the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President from power. Remove Trump from the situation, let's say we are in the year 2062 and random Congressman John Blonne from Wisconsin calls for the Cabinet to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove the President from power for cause, instead of Blonne submitting articles of impeachment for cause in the House. This is from a constitutional law perspective ridiculous. Congressmen have no business making even the request to the Cabinet first for separation of powers but more importantly because there's a constitutionally mandated way that exists for them to remove the President if they so desire. It's the equivalent of calling your neighbor and telling him to come over and change the TV channel on your TV when the remote control is in your hand.

Sure, Congressman Blonne in this situation would be asking for something beyond his power, but he isn't actually doing anything by calling on the Cabinet to act in such a way in a public setting. Congressman asks the executive branch and its agencies to act in this way or that all the time. He has no power over the cabinet really, and an interview doesn't give him that power. If the Cabinet pursues removal under Section 4, it would do so of its own accord, not because Blonne asked them to. So sure, it is like calling your neighbor to change your channel, and in all likelihood, he would just scoff and hang up unless he had some reason of his own to come over, in which case the Cabinet would have acted within its constitutional prerogatives under the Amendment. To some extent, I agree with aspects of your objection to the Amendment, but it is part of the Constitution at this point so regardless of our concerns about separation of power, it still stands in its current form.

[politicallefty]

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

By definition, utilizing the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it is not a legalized coup. A coup d'état has a specific definition, primarily that is is an illegal and/or violent overthrow of the government. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment establishes a legal procedure for stripping the President of his powers if he is deemed "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". You may argue for medical cases only, but mental ones are far more subjective and may be no less medical in nature. Even so, the 25th Amendment already contemplated the issue of a Vice President and Cabinet (or other body) voting against the President. It requires Congress, with a 2/3 vote of both Houses, to sustain the VP and Cabinet (or other body).

It's no more a coup than a non-confidence motion in a parliamentary system or impeachment under the US Constitution. In theory, a very hostile President/Congress relationship could have the President removed through impeachment. It is only our norms and traditions that have kept that power from being truly realized, but it is an absolute power. The courts cannot touch it and the President cannot issue pardons when impeachment is involved. If the impeachment of Andrew Johnson had resulted in conviction and removal, it's quite possible it could've transformed into a de facto vote of no confidence.

[StateBoiler]

Like the president approving a congressional appropriation that cuts their departments by 10% or for disagreeing with his foreign policy say in the middle of a war?

It's being discussed yesterday and today as a loophole to work around Congress not doing impeachment and conviction. This is a legalized coup. Now most agree with the coup and the reasons, but it's still a coup. We have an established process for removing a federal official from office for cause-impeachment followed by conviction. The 25th Amendment is a cause-less removal, yet people want to use it de facto as a "for cause" removal.

This is an awful lot of power to give to a bunch of mostly unseen people that have never faced a ballot box. Once you break the glass once, you don't break the glass twice, you follow established precedent. I just feel the 25th should be clamped down so that the method and process to remove the president for cause remains with Congress and that the Cabinet act as mere reporters for the obvious medical cases. That this is even a thing and has now been brought up 2 times, it's less that this is something Cabinet should do and more because people want Congress to do something that Congress has shown itself unwilling to do.

By definition, utilizing the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it is not a legalized coup. A coup d'état has a specific definition, primarily that is is an illegal and/or violent overthrow of the government.

I dispute that. Coup carries a certain connotation obviously which is what you state. "Legalized coup" means forcibly usurping power from someone, but it's legal. The term coup in widespread use of the English language has been used many times in business and politics to describe something that was within the norms for forcibly ousting a leader from power. For example, the stillborn Gingrich coup in the House.

If you want to start a linguistics thread on the proper use of words, go start one somewhere else. I'm here debating the Constitution and the actions of the House and Cabinet.

It is only our norms and traditions that have kept that power from being truly realized, but it is an absolute power.

We were one vote away in 1868 and that was because the Kansas Republican Party did a poor job vetting the views of their appointment.

[politicallefty]

I dispute that. Coup carries a certain connotation obviously which is what you state. "Legalized coup" means forcibly usurping power from someone, but it's legal. The term coup in widespread use of the English language has been used many times in business and politics to describe something that was within the norms for forcibly ousting a leader from power. For example, the stillborn Gingrich coup in the House.

If you want to start a linguistics thread on the proper use of words, go start one somewhere else. I'm here debating the Constitution and the actions of the House and Cabinet.

My point was that the term "legal coup" is basically an oxymoron. And it would not just be the actions of the House and Cabinet. For the 25th Amendment to take effect, current law requires the VP and a majority of Cabinet to agree that the President is unable to exercise power. The reason is irrelevant. If the President contests, it requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to sustain the action. That's a much higher threshold than impeachment and removal.

It is only our norms and traditions that have kept that power from being truly realized, but it is an absolute power.

We were one vote away in 1868 and that was because the Kansas Republican Party did a poor job vetting the views of their appointment.

If you're arguing in support of Andrew Johnson's conviction, I would agree with you there. He should have been convicted and removed. It's possible this country could've become a de facto quasi-parliamentary system with a subordinate President. This country would've been better off if a doctrine of Congressional supremacy became ingrained in society with the Speaker of the House becoming a de facto Prime Minister.

[The Mikado]

For OP:

There is a very clear, but implied check on the 25th Amendment: if it's done against the President's will, and Congress doesn't agree with the VP and Cabinet, then after the 3 week period, the President is back in power, and while the President can't fire the VP, the President can fire any Cabinet member at will.

Step A. VP and half of Cabinet invoke 25th.
Step B. President disputes
Step C. House and Senate fail to get 2/3rds majority to remove President permanently.
Step D. President retakes power after the three week period.
Step E. President fires every Cabinet member who signed on to the 25th Amendment use.

This is basically inevitable and every Cabinet member knows this, which is the real check on inappropriate uses of the 25th Amendment.

[Dereich]

For OP:

There is a very clear, but implied check on the 25th Amendment: if it's done against the President's will, and Congress doesn't agree with the VP and Cabinet, then after the 3 week period, the President is back in power, and while the President can't fire the VP, the President can fire any Cabinet member at will.

Step A. VP and half of Cabinet invoke 25th.
Step B. President disputes
Step C. House and Senate fail to get 2/3rds majority to remove President permanently.
Step D. President retakes power after the three week period.
Step E. President fires every Cabinet member who signed on to the 25th Amendment use.

This is basically inevitable and every Cabinet member knows this, which is the real check on inappropriate uses of the 25th Amendment.

While I agree with everything else, I believe Step D shouldn't be there; the relevant part of the 25th amendment reads as such:

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.

From my read of the amendment, if Congress voted and failed to support the Vice President's assertion of the President's inability the President would resume his powers immediately. The only mention of the three week period is in how long Congress has to vote on the inability, not in how long the Vice President would be Acting President. If the VP sent Congress the letter indicating presidential inability and Congress voted against the VP right then and there it makes no sense that he would get to continue as Acting President for three weeks.

[StateBoiler]

For OP:

There is a very clear, but implied check on the 25th Amendment: if it's done against the President's will, and Congress doesn't agree with the VP and Cabinet, then after the 3 week period, the President is back in power, and while the President can't fire the VP, the President can fire any Cabinet member at will.

Step A. VP and half of Cabinet invoke 25th.
Step B. President disputes
Step C. House and Senate fail to get 2/3rds majority to remove President permanently.
Step D. President retakes power after the three week period.
Step E. President fires every Cabinet member who signed on to the 25th Amendment use.

This is basically inevitable and every Cabinet member knows this, which is the real check on inappropriate uses of the 25th Amendment.

Do people not realize the clusterf*** constitutional crisis though that is Steps B through E?

[brucejoel99]

For OP:

There is a very clear, but implied check on the 25th Amendment: if it's done against the President's will, and Congress doesn't agree with the VP and Cabinet, then after the 3 week period, the President is back in power, and while the President can't fire the VP, the President can fire any Cabinet member at will.

Step A. VP and half of Cabinet invoke 25th.
Step B. President disputes
Step C. House and Senate fail to get 2/3rds majority to remove President permanently.
Step D. President retakes power after the three week period.
Step E. President fires every Cabinet member who signed on to the 25th Amendment use.

This is basically inevitable and every Cabinet member knows this, which is the real check on inappropriate uses of the 25th Amendment.

Do people not realize the clusterf*** constitutional crisis though that is Steps B through E?

Perhaps it'd be political crisis, sure, but the wording of the 25th Amendment is quite clear about who'd constitutionally be in charge during the course of Steps B through E.