25th amendment

[everything]

For some reason this story just got pulled but cached here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Don’t look now: It’s President Pence! Donald Trump can be deposed, even without impeachment
Given Trump's erratic behavior in his first few days, Washington is starting to murmur about the 25th Amendment
HEATHER DIGBY PARTON SKIP TO COMMENTS
TOPICS: 25TH AMENDMENT, CONGRESS, CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, DONALD TRUMP, IMPEACHMENT, MIKE PENCE, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CONSTITUTION, POLITICS NEWS

Don't look now: It's President Pence! Donald Trump can be deposed, even without impeachment
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence (L) takes the oath of office from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (R) (Credit: Getty/Chip Somodevilla)
This story has been corrected since it was originally published.
Donald Trump is in over his head. This comes as no surprise to the millions of people who could see that he was unprepared and unfit for the job of president of the United States and voted against him. He’s basically a celebrity heir to a fortune who was so entitled that he believed his privileged existence proved he was competent to run the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s the attitude of an aristocrat who ascended to the throne without having any idea what it actually takes to rule. History’s full of such men. It doesn’t often work out well.

Trump managed to convince enough voters in just the right places that his “business success,” born mostly of hype and relentless public relations over many years, qualified him for the Oval Office. Since the Protestant work ethic and the philosophy of virtuous capitalism still permeate American culture, it’s not uncommon for people to equate financial success with superior intelligence and character. Many individuals among the public undoubtedly assumed that Trump’s persona at the rallies was somewhat of a salesman’s act, that he was playing the role of demagogue to rile up the crowd. They assumed that behind closed doors he was a smart and able businessman, making tough decisions on the fly, handling many issues at once.

Those voters did not see what millions of others felt instinctively and that explains the shocked reaction and immediate resistance to his election: Trump’s incessant bragging, his lack of empathy or remorse, his pathological lying and even his bizarre appearance have been signs of an unstable personality. It was obvious to many of us that something was not right.

The presidential transition was a dumpster fire with endless resignations, rumors and public humiliations. Trump’s refusal to deal responsibly with the intelligence community’s investigations of Russian interference in the campaign was worrisome. Picking a fight with the intelligence community over this was downright alarming. Still, one couldn’t help but think that the weight of the job might inspire Trump’s staff and the people close to him to instill some discipline into the system and keep the new president focused once he took the wheel. That hasn’t happened. The first days of the new administration have been a disaster.

From last Saturday through Tuesday night, it’s been one surreal event after another, starting with Trump’s visit to the CIA headquarters where he stood in front of the Memorial Wall — marked with 117 stars honoring agents who have died in the line of duty — and acted like he was at a rally in a high school gym in Indiana.

He didn’t seem to have a clue that he was being inappropriate. He compounded the bad impression by sending out his press secretary Sean Spicer to insist that the crowd for his inauguration was bigger than any in history. When Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer by saying he had simply offered “alternative facts,” members of the media were stunned. It’s not that they assume officials always tell the truth. But they were clearly shocked that the White House would chastise them for reporting something that was obviously and provably correct.

When the president was reported to have told congressional leaders on Monday that he still believed 3 million to 5 million illegal votes had been cast in the election, causing him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, it became clear that Trump’s erratic behavior was not stopping. Leaks have been pouring out from inside the nascent administration, giving a picture of an insecure, irrational man who is obsessed with his image and little else.

According to an article in The Washington Post, Trump’s inner circle is overwhelmed by power struggles and internecine battles while the president fulminates over every criticism. The New York Times has reported that his staff is concerned about his “simmering resentment” at what he thinks is unfair press coverage. Politico has reported that aides are trying to minimize his incessant TV viewing, and according to a report by Axios, Trump is running his administration almost entirely in reaction to what he sees in the media. He sounds as if he is unable to handle the stress and is using avoidance mechanisms.

So what happens if President Trump cannot pull himself together and continues to psychologically unravel? There is a remedy other than impeachment. Even conservatives like David Frum have been talking about it for a while:

Follow
David Frum ✔ @davidfrum
Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4. We’re all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months ahead.
8:27 AM - 16 Nov 2016
813 813 Retweets 1,109 1,109 likes
The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and provides for the replacement of the vice president if the office becomes vacant. (So it led indirectly to the presidency of Gerald Ford, the only American president who was never elected to any national office.) But Section 4 is about something else entirely:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

A temporary transfer of power has happened a handful of times since the Kennedy assassination, once when Ronald Reagan had cancer surgery and twice when George W. Bush underwent colonoscopies. Most people have thought of the 25th Amendment as a way to deal with a president who has had a heart attack or a stroke and has become incapacitated, as Woodrow Wilson did, with his wife effectively assuming the duties of the presidency for the remainder of his term.

But the language of the amendment clearly encompasses other scenarios besides physical incapacitation. This topic was a subject of discussion toward the end of the Reagan administration, when it became obvious that the president was suffering a loss of cognitive ability. It wasn’t invoked then but as we now know, Reagan was indeed suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Had it become more acute or obvious while he was in office, Congress might well have had to take action as laid out in the amendment.

It’s obvious that Trump has a narcissistic personality, which in itself is not disqualifying. He’s not the first president to have one; nor will he be the last. But his issues seem to run deeper than that. Some observers have suggested that he shows the characteristics of classic psychopathy. And there are plenty of people who see his behavior as blatantly self-destructive.

Follow
David Frum ✔ @davidfrum
Pro tip: when meeting w the people who have the power to remove you under the 25th amendment, try not to say anything glaringly insane https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status ... 9144984576 …
8:47 PM - 23 Jan 2017
3,145 3,145 Retweets 6,005 6,005 likes
Of course it’s an extreme long shot that members of Trump’s Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress would ever take such a drastic step. (Although it’s not at all hard to imagine that in their hearts many of them would prefer President Mike Pence.) This would only happen if Trump really started to behave in a unhinged fashion. After all the bizarre behavior he has exhibited over the past 18 months, one cannot help but wonder: What could possibly count as going too far? It’s almost too terrifying to imagine.

Heather Digby Parton
Heather Digby Parton, also known as "Digby," is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism.

[windwalker]

Follow your own logic.

The Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors.
What or who would anyone replace the elected president with?

What happens when someone else is put into the office that some may not agree with?

The first days of the new administration have been a disaster.

"Dow closes above 20,000 for first time as Trump orders send stocks flying"

can you point to this "disaster"

[everything]

hahaha good one

[klonk]

Story was pulled where? It's up on Salon. http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/dont-lo ... N.facebook

[klonk]

I think the Trump angst we are seeing from leftists is likely to backfire when Trump proves to be a modestly capable administrator who is, moreover, hemmed in by the laws of the land when he tries anything over the top. It is happening already...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... nationwide

Hitler? Not even close.

[Steve James]

when Trump proves to be a modestly capable administrator who is, moreover, hemmed in by the laws of the land when he tries anything over the top.

Hemmed in by the laws of the land??? That's the devilish hypocrisy of the "right." He's supposed to be the "law and order" candidate, hemmed in by the laws. Therefore, we should just let him ignore the laws.

Yeah, this country and its laws and Christian morality.

Oh, let us not forget, Dongle J. Trump put his hand on a Bible last week and SWORE to uphold the Constitution of the United States which is, in fact, the "law of the land." Then again, we knew he was lying.

[klonk]

when Trump proves to be a modestly capable administrator who is, moreover, hemmed in by the laws of the land when he tries anything over the top.

Hemmed in by the laws of the land??? That's the devilish hypocrisy of the "right." He's supposed to be the "law and order" candidate, hemmed in by the laws. Therefore, we should just let him ignore the laws.

Yeah, this country and its laws and Christian morality.

Well, that is just weird. Aren't you happy that a liberal judge has but a doorstop in the way of the immigration order? Heck, my side took Obamacare all the way to the Supreme Court.

Land of laws, Steve, not of men.

[windwalker]

I think the Trump angst we are seeing from leftists is likely to backfire when Trump proves to be a modestly capable administrator who is, moreover, hemmed in by the laws of the land when he tries anything over the top. It is happening already...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... nationwide

Hitler? Not even close.

Trump's order said that admission will resume only after vetting has been deemed "adequate" by the secretary of State, the secretary of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence.

Seems reasonable

[windwalker]

How many here have had to deal with immigration laws?

[Steve James]

You said hemmed in by the law. Yes, he is hemmed in by the Constitution, just like everyone else. No one is above the law.

Besides, if he can make such an executive order about them, he can do it about you. So, the concept of "equal justice under the law" applies. Not everyone pledged allegiance to Trump.

But, hey, I already know that U.S. law can endorse or allow all sorts of atrocities. It's not surprising. And, perhaps it's not notable that people are happy to complain about overreach by "the gov't." It's just the flat out hypocrisy of criticizing "the law" too. It's just so American, i.e., utterly meaningless. It makes us a laughing stock, especially when people hear about "American exceptionalism." What a joke.


2 Corinthians 11:14

[windwalker]

President Barack Obama has used the authority this statute provides six times in his tenure. In July 2011, Obama barred the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-p ... z4X7eYHOPH

wow 6 times....maybe the news missed it.

[klonk]

The article reproduced above suggests a Captain Queeg scenario. I find it farcical. I find it reflects a panicked attitude that a president you deeply disagree with can wreck the ship of state.

Nothing of the sort happened in the previous eight years, which encourages me that we are more durable than some suppose.

[Taste of Death]

Hannah Arendt made the comments that follow in 1974 during an interview with the French writer Roger Errera.

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism begins in contempt for what you have. The second step is the notion: “Things must change—no matter how, Anything is better than what we have.” Totalitarian rulers organize this kind of mass sentiment, and by organizing it articulate it, and by articulating it make the people somehow love it. They were told before, thou shalt not kill; and they didn’t kill. Now they are told, thou shalt kill; and although they think it’s very difficult to kill, they do it because it’s now part of the code of behavior. They learn whom to kill and how to kill and how to do it together. This is the much talked about Gleichschaltung—the coordination process. You are coordinated not with the powers that be, but with your neighbor—coordinated with the majority. But instead of communicating with the other you are now glued to him. And you feel of course marvelous. Totalitarianism appeals to the very dangerous emotional needs of people who live in complete isolation and in fear of one another.

Lies

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

Contingency and History

The main characteristic of any event is that it has not been foreseen. We don’t know the future but everybody acts into the future. Nobody knows what he is doing because the future is being done, action is being done by a “we” and not an “I.” Only if I were the only one acting could I foretell the consequences of what I’m doing. What actually happens is entirely contingent, and contingency is indeed one of the biggest factors in all history.

Nobody knows what is going to happen because so much depends on an enormous number of variables, on simple hazard. On the other hand if you look at history retrospectively, then, even though it was contingent, you can tell a story that makes sense…. Jewish history, for example, in fact had its ups and downs, its, enmities and its friendships, as every history of all people has. The notion that there is one unilinear history is of course false. But if you look at it after the experience of Auschwitz it looks as though all of history—or at least history since the Middle Ages—had no other alm than Auschwitz…. This, is the real problem of every philosophy of history how is it possible that in retrospect it always looks as though it couldn’t have happened otherwise?

Facts and Theories

A good example of the kind of scientific mentality that overwhelms all other insights is the “domino theory.” The fact is that very few of the sophisticated intellectuals who wrote the Pentagon Papers believed in this theory. Yet everything they did was based on this assumption—not because they were liars, or because they wanted to please their superiors, but because it gave them a framework within which they could work. They took this framework even though they knew—and though every intelligence report and every factual analysis proved to them every morning—that these assumptions were simply factually wrong. They took it because they didn’t have any other framework. People find such theories in order to get rid of contingency and unexpectedness. Good old Hegel once said that all philosophical contemplation serves only to eliminate the accidental. A fact has to be witnessed by eyewitnesses who are not the best of witnesses; no fact is beyond doubt. But that two and two are four is somehow beyond doubt. And the theories produced in the Pentagon were all much more plausible than the facts of what actually happened.

Jews

The “giftedness”—so to speak—of a certain part at least of the Jewish people is a historical problem, a problem of the first order for the historians. I can risk a speculative explanation: we are the only people, the only European people, who have survived from antiquity pretty much intact. That means we have kept our identity, and it means we are the only people who have never known analphabetism. We were always literate because you cannot be a Jew without being literate. The women were less literate than the men but even they were much more literate than their counterparts elsewhere. Not only the elite knew how to read but every Jew had to read—the whole people, in all its classes and on all levels of giftedness and intelligence.

Evil

When I wrote my Eichmann in Jerusalem one of my main intentions was to destroy the legend of the greatness of evil, of the demonic force, to take away from people the admiration they have for the great evildoers like Richard III.

I found in Brecht the following remark:

The great political criminals must be exposed and exposed especially to laughter. They are not great political criminals, but people who permitted great political crimes, which is something entirely different. The failure of his enterprises does not indicate that Hitler was an idiot.

Now, that Hitler was an idiot was of course a prejudice of the whole opposition to Hitler prior to his seizure of power and therefore a great many books tried then to justify him and to make him a great man. So, Brecht says, “The fact that he failed did not indicate that Hitler was an idiot and the extent of his enterprises does not make him a great man.” It is neither the one nor the other: this whole category of greatness has no application.

“If the ruling classes,” he goes on, “permit a small crook to become a great crook, he is not entitled to a privileged position in our view of history. That is, the fact that he becomes a great crook and that what he does has great consequences does not add to his stature.” And generally speaking he then says in these very abrupt remarks: “One may say that tragedy deals with the sufferings of mankind in a less serious way than comedy.” This of course is a shocking statement; I think that at the same time it is entirely true. What is really necessary is, if you want to keep your integrity under these circumstances, then you can do it only if you remember your old way of looking at such things and say: “No matter what he does and if he killed ten million people, he is still a clown.”

Progress

The law of progress holds that everything now must be better than what was there before. Don’t you see if you want something better, and better, and better, you lose the good. The good is no longer even being measured.

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238GK7YwI6w

He said it; not me.

[Giles]

Thank you for that whole text, ToD - very worthwhile. Written over 40 years ago, inspired by events around 40 years before that! And above all the first two paragraphs are so relevant to what is happening, or could be about to happen, or could potentially happen, in many non-Third-World countries.

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism begins in contempt for what you have. The second step is the notion: “Things must change—no matter how, Anything is better than what we have.” Totalitarian rulers organize this kind of mass sentiment, and by organizing it articulate it, and by articulating it make the people somehow love it. They were told before, thou shalt not kill; and they didn’t kill. Now they are told, thou shalt kill; and although they think it’s very difficult to kill, they do it because it’s now part of the code of behavior. They learn whom to kill and how to kill and how to do it together. This is the much talked about Gleichschaltung—the coordination process. You are coordinated not with the powers that be, but with your neighbor—coordinated with the majority. But instead of communicating with the other you are now glued to him. And you feel of course marvelous. Totalitarianism appeals to the very dangerous emotional needs of people who live in complete isolation and in fear of one another.

Lies

The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

Of course, large sections (but not all) of the established political parties and politicians on both the right and the left have themselves to blame for the fact that many people, with some justification, feel a greater or lesser degree of "contempt for what you have". The so-called liberal democracies have, alongside some pretty good stuff, also been fudging, ignoring, denying, copping out on many crucial issues for too long. It's not so much that they are now reaping what they have sown, but more the consequences of what they have consistently failed to sow over the past, say, 20 years.
So now this gives rise to "The second step [which] is the notion: “Things must change—no matter how, Anything is better than what we have."" - No, it isn't. Some things, some solutions - usually the things that require hard thinking, hard work over a longer period and the intellectual and moral strength to eschew black-and-white solutions - can turn out to be better than what we have. But in many countries too many moments for this type of solutions have been missed and so already a lot of people are finding "Step Two" a convincing proposition. And have voted, or may soon vote, accordingly.
It's going to be a tough task for the liberal democracies: come up with concepts that present a positive and feasible alternative to the New Far Right parties and leaders, and communicate them as well. Just harking back to the status quo won't cut it, because the New Far Right are correct in pointing out that some things in that status quo are broken. Only thing is, the 'solutions' they offer will turn out to be even worse, just like Ms Arendt described. Russia, Turkey, some countries in Eastern Europe, are taking this path. Elements in some countries of Western Europe may try to follow suit. The US seems to be on a cusp. Now we really are living in interesting times