671
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
671 points (99.0% liked)
politics
22085 readers
4051 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The point is whether the 25th amendment should have been invoked.
If the conditions were met, then other past presidents doing the same thing just means the 25th amendment should have been invoked in those situations as well.
None of this has anything to do with the 25th Amendment. The 25th is the process for removing a president from office in the event of physical or mental disability to severe that the President can no longer carry out the duties of office.
Committing war crimes doesn't trigger the 25th. Neither does breaking any other law. Those are what impeachment is for, and (ignoring the Supreme Court's recent unlawful establishment of an elective absolute monarchy) enforcement of the law against the President, in those cases where there are criminal penalties.
Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.
Btw, as an outsider I'm pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet's dementia would be impossible.
Yeah, the barrier to actually using the 25th is absurdly high, and a president with dementia could cling to office by the simple expedient of objecting to the finding of incapacity. The amendment regards that as sufficient evidence that the president can carry out his duties. And if a VP chose to protect an incapacitated president from removal from office, the process could be derailed that way, too.
As for rebutting Kreskin, I think I'm done attempting to reason with them. Instead, I'll try teaching my dog to play chess, it's more likely I'll succeed at that.