31
Trump’s Insane New Threat Leaves No Doubt: It’s Time for the 25th Amendment
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
31 points (100.0% liked)
politics
28889 readers
525 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
Sigh. I keep reminding people that the 25th Amendment was not meant for this. It was meant for when a President is physically incapacitated. Like, if a President was shot in the head, and is still alive, but in a coma. Because all the President has to do is say "Naw, I'm good", and he gets his office back. If the VP and Cabinet still agree, it takes a 2/3 majority of both Houses to make the expulsion stick. And even then, the VP carries in as "Acting President", which is not formally defined anywhere.
Impeachment is the way to handle this. It has a lower threshold. It doesn't require the VP or Cabinet to sign off first, and only needs 1/2 the House to start the process. And once the President is removed from office by 2/3 of the Senate, the VP becomes the actual President, no "acting" involved.
You're 100% right on the mechanics of it, but only 90% right overall. There is one small thing you might not be considering: Republicans might be more supportive of removing an "incapacitated" president than impeaching a tyrannical one because of the less damaging connotation of it.
Dementia is physical incapacitation.
What is impeachment usually meant to do? Because he's been impeached twice and here he is.
Colloquially it is also meant to include conviction by the Senate. Impeach + convict. But yes, Republicans have been assholes for many decades. It still needs to happen though, so it is what continues to get demanded.
Impeachment is meant as a check on an Imperial Presidency. In the Constitution, it is supposed to be triggered in response to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". It leaves to Congress what that means. So it does not have to be a chargeable crime. The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and Treaties like the NATO treaty are supposed to have the same force as the Constitution. Threatening to attack our allies should count as impeachable.
However, he has been impeached twice and failed because Republicans in Congress have his back. In particular, the second time around McConnell said that Trump deserved punishment, but it was better done in the courts. Then Surprise! the Courts said the only way to hold a sitting President to account was through impeachment. It was an ouroborous of letting him off the hook.
We may have to live with the fact that there is no way to fix this, other than voters (or God Himself) intervening, as long as Republicans are too chickenshit to stand up to Trump.
Or, historically, his wife claims he's good, but can't speak to anyone directly, so she would talk with him away from everyone and come back with his feedback.
I predict Stephen Miller would be the one to assume that role this time.
I like you're assumption that's not already happening. Trump doesn't have the capacity to orchestrate what's currently going on, there is definitely multiple people using him for their own interests.