What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they have
to ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet members
and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the VP is
in office. VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote. I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after the President appeals. The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then
two-thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree that
the President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is equivalent
to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years Superbowl :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 5:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet members
and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the VP is
in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then
two-thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree that
the President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is equivalent
to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years Superbowl :-)

Of course if you have a two-thirds majorities vote of Congress for the
25th amendment then it might be easier to just impeach the President.
No VP or cabinet members needed


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 8:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet members
and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the VP is
in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then
two-thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree that
the President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is equivalent
to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years Superbowl :-)

Well, not quite. There is actually some (albeit slim) non-zero chance
that the president could be removed after January 20th. Mathematically,
there is zero chance the Jets could even get to the Super Bowl this year.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 7:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they have
to ?

The VP-Elect is not an elected position so he would have no authority to
do this.

The VP and a majority of Cabinet officials can vote to temporarily
remove the sitting President (NOT President-elect, which is not a
position) if they assess the President is not fit to perform duties, but
the President so removed can simply notify Congress that he is able to re-assume his duties. It would then take a 2/3 vote of Congress to
actually remove the President at that point.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:30:11 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote. I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but where do you see that
written down?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:55:34 -0800 (PST), Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to remove a president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

The only way to remove a President is by impeachment & conviction.(*)

The 25th Amendment talks about _suspending_ the President, not
_removing_ him. The Veep becomes Acting President, not President; and
the President keeps his title though he loses his power.

Of course, it's Trump, whose strategy is always to litigate as much
as possible. No doubt, he'll immediately "[transmit] to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists".

Then the Vice President will have to call a Cabinet meeting,(**)
which will likely vote the same way as it did the first time, in
which case it goes to Congress. In the unlikely event that Congress
rules Trump unfit by 2/3 votes in both houses, there's nothing I see
to stop him from sending another declaration to the Speaker and the
President pro tem of the Senate, starting the whole thing all over
again. That's if he doesn't have the Acting President kidnapped or
killed, which the Supreme Court allowed him to do.

(*) Well, there's assassination too, but this is
misc.LEGAL.moderated. :-)

(**) "or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", but as
far as I know Congress has not so provided.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 12:06 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:30:11 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote. I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but where do you see that
written down?

Actually I got it from a TV program.

In March 2017, the Supreme Court ruled in National Labor Relations Board
v. SW General, Inc. that the Vacancies Act generally prohibits a person
from serving in an acting capacity while concurrently the nominee for
the position, though there are some exceptions.

Note that the President can appoint a person to perform the functions
and duties of the vacant office temporarily.

My guess is the Supreme Court may have to rule if an acting head has a
vote for purposes of the 25th amendment.

----------------------------

3345. Acting officer
(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office
of the President, and other than the Government Accountability Office)
whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is
otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity
subject to the time limitations of section 3346;

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the
President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which
appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of
the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or

(3) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the
President) may direct an officer or employee of such Executive agency to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an
acting capacity, subject to the time limitations of section 3346,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:30:11 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote. I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but where do you see that
written down?

The language of the 25th Amendment is,

"the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body
as Congress may by law provide,..."

Someone who is "acting" but hasn't been confirmed by the Senate may not be
one of the officers, though it's not clear.

Still, if a deposed President is well enough to object to being removed,
his actual removal will be more difficult than obtaining an appeachment conviction.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 9:58 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 5:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to
remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they
have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet members
and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the VP
is in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after
the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then two-
thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree that the
President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is
equivalent to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years
Superbowl :-)

Of course if you have a two-thirds majorities vote of Congress for the
25th amendment then it might be easier to just impeach the President. No
VP or cabinet members needed

The 25th removes someone based on fitness for the job, without
consideration of legality of actions.

President's in a coma? 25th can remove him, even if (s)he was Mother
Teresa. (Yeah, there's those who say she wasn't really saintly but we'll
assume she was.)

President ordered a Seal team to assassinate the Speaker of the House
but is still in full capacity mentally? Doesn't fall under the 25th at
all but he could be impeached.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/2025 3:59 PM, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 12/24/2024 9:58 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 5:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to
remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would they
have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet members
and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the VP
is in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after
the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then two-
thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree that the
President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is
equivalent to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years
Superbowl :-)

Of course if you have a two-thirds majorities vote of Congress for the
25th amendment then it might be easier to just impeach the President.
No VP or cabinet members needed

The 25th removes someone based on fitness for the job, without
consideration of legality of actions.

President's in a coma? 25th can remove him, even if (s)he was Mother
Teresa. (Yeah, there's those who say she wasn't really saintly but we'll assume she was.)

President ordered a Seal team to assassinate the Speaker of the House
but is still in full capacity mentally? Doesn't fall under the 25th at
all but he could be impeached.

Yes, but "fitness for job" is in the eye of the beholder. Whether the president is "really" fit for the job is irrelevant if "a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide" believes he is unfit. So he
can indeed be temporarily removed from office under the 25th. And if he
is indeed "really" fit to continue, he can file his own statement and
resume the powers of office, but he can also be removed again after a
new vote.

In other words, the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out the
definition of fitness to serve, so it is potentially whatever the VP and Cabinet heads want it to mean.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/13/2025 6:18 PM, Rick wrote:

On 3/13/2025 3:59 PM, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 12/24/2024 9:58 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 5:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to
remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a
start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would
they have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet
members and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into office
don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration so the
VP is in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from "-elect" status. >>>>
Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal after
the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then
two- thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree
that the President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is
equivalent to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years
Superbowl :-)

Of course if you have a two-thirds majorities vote of Congress for
the 25th amendment then it might be easier to just impeach the
President. No VP or cabinet members needed

The 25th removes someone based on fitness for the job, without
consideration of legality of actions.

President's in a coma? 25th can remove him, even if (s)he was Mother
Teresa. (Yeah, there's those who say she wasn't really saintly but
we'll assume she was.)

President ordered a Seal team to assassinate the Speaker of the House
but is still in full capacity mentally? Doesn't fall under the 25th at
all but he could be impeached.

Yes, but "fitness for job" is in the eye of the beholder.  Whether the president is "really" fit for the job is irrelevant if "a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide" believes he is unfit.  So he
can indeed be temporarily removed from office under the 25th.  And if he
is indeed "really" fit to continue, he can file his own statement and
resume the powers of office, but he can also be removed again after a
new vote.

In other words, the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out the
definition of fitness to serve, so it is potentially whatever the VP and Cabinet heads want it to mean.

It takes a simple majority of the House and 2/3 super-majority of the
Senate to impeach and convict and remove the president.

It takes the VP and a majority of the "Secretaries of XXXXXX" AND a 2/3 super-majority of both the house and the Senate to remove a president
under the 25th.

I think it'd be much easier to get an impeachment than to get a 25th
removal short of anything like an official diagnosis of Alzheimer's or a
coma or such other obvious physical or medical impairment. Regan might

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/24/2025 6:52 PM, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 3/13/2025 6:18 PM, Rick wrote:

On 3/13/2025 3:59 PM, Mike Anderson wrote:

On 12/24/2024 9:58 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 5:30 AM, Roy wrote:

On 12/24/2024 4:55 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

What are the issues around a move by the VP-elect to use this to
remove a
president who is clearly unwell (threatening to invade allies for a >>>>>> start) ?

How quickly could SCOTUS rule on this, if they chose to ? Would
they have
to ?

Removal requires the vote of the VP and a majority of cabinet
members and a possible vote of Congress.

The first obstacle is that people who haven't been sworn into
office don't count so this would have to be after the inauguration
so the VP is in office.  VP Harris cannot remove anyone from
"-elect" status.

Next obstacle is that acting cabinet members can't vote.  I would
suppose the Supreme Court might have a say in this step.

There is also a step where the cabinet has to agree on removal
after the President appeals.  The cabinet could have changed
membership.

The last obstacle is that if the President contests removal then
two- thirds majorities of both chambers of Congress have to agree
that the President is unable to serve.

The probability of all those dominoes falling in sequence is
equivalent to the NY Jets being declared winners of this years
Superbowl :-)

Of course if you have a two-thirds majorities vote of Congress for
the 25th amendment then it might be easier to just impeach the
President. No VP or cabinet members needed

The 25th removes someone based on fitness for the job, without
consideration of legality of actions.

President's in a coma? 25th can remove him, even if (s)he was Mother
Teresa. (Yeah, there's those who say she wasn't really saintly but
we'll assume she was.)

President ordered a Seal team to assassinate the Speaker of the House
but is still in full capacity mentally? Doesn't fall under the 25th
at all but he could be impeached.

Yes, but "fitness for job" is in the eye of the beholder.  Whether the
president is "really" fit for the job is irrelevant if "a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide" believes he is unfit.  So
he can indeed be temporarily removed from office under the 25th.  And
if he is indeed "really" fit to continue, he can file his own
statement and resume the powers of office, but he can also be removed
again after a new vote.

In other words, the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out the
definition of fitness to serve, so it is potentially whatever the VP
and Cabinet heads want it to mean.

It takes a simple majority of the House and 2/3 super-majority of the
Senate to impeach and convict and remove the president.

It takes the VP and a majority of the "Secretaries of XXXXXX" AND a 2/3 super-majority of both the house and the Senate to remove a president
under the 25th.

I think it'd be much easier to get an impeachment than to get a 25th
removal short of anything like an official diagnosis of Alzheimer's or a
coma or such other obvious physical or medical impairment. Regan might

Right. The 25th Amendment was not envisioned as a replacement or
substitute for impeachment. It was intended to deal with situations
where the president was suddenly disabled to injury, accident, sudden
illness or something similar. I'm thinking of the situation in Israel
back in 2006 when Premier Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke and was
incapacitated but remained alive.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)