Surely actually going after Obama would end Trumps presidency.
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
Surely actually going after Obama would end Trumps presidency.
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
I think you are referring to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. There are two steps to this
Step one: the VP along with the majority of the principle offers of the deparments of the executive branch or other body as Congress may provide can convey to the president pro tempore and Speaker of the House the president is no longer able to carry out his/her duties, the VP will immediately assume the responsibilities of the president.
However--and this is step two--if the president challenges that declaration, it can be referred to the congress, and if 2/3 of both houses agree, VP can continue to be the Acting President .
Note, in both instances, the president is not removed from office, only relieved of duties, the VP is just the Acting President during this time.
Section Four reads:
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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. 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.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
I would agree. But “easier” and”much easier” aren’t the same thing either.
And practically speaking, it’s really only easier if a majority of the House is willing to hold hearings on impeachment, draft articles of impeachment, allow a vote on those articles and actually vote for impeachment. That isn’t the House we have right now, so any “easier” is purely theoretical
The reality is that the “easiness” of both impeachment and conviction on one hand and the Twenty-fifth Amendment on the other is very fact-situation dependent.
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Just impeaching the guy doesn’t accomplish a thing. We’re only “done with it” if the Senate convicts—which requires a two-thirds majority of senators present—on any articles of impeachment.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Assuming for the sake of argument that impeachment and conviction is actually “less complicated” than implementing the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (which I don’t think is a given, as they both come with built-in and practical complications), “less complicated” is not the same as “much easier.”
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
And, the 25th does not remove a president, it just relieves the president of his/her duties, but he/she still retains the title. Two, even if the full congress decides to relieve the president of duties, the president can still appeal again at a later date.
A scenario say a certain president has a psychotic break, the VP and majority of the heads of the departments of the executive branch agree that president must be relieved of duties and they duly inform the President pro tempore and Speaker of the House of their decision, relieving the president of his duties. However, the president appeals to the full congress (steps in process acknowledged), after due diligence, both houses affirm the president is relieved of duties. A midterm election happens and the supermajorities of one or both houses are eliminated. He appeals again, congress cannot obtain the necessary votes, and he returns to the full powers of the office.
And now the Washington Post reports that after the announcement that employment growth is down, trump has ordered the firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because, "she faked positive job numbers before the election to try and boost Kamala's Harris's chance of victory".
The BLS firing is curious. The "rigged" jobs report for July showed weakness in the economy. And it is THAT report, just issued, that is claimed to be "rigged," not reports issued during the Biden years.
But here is the thing: The bad July report has led to speculation that it would cause the Fed, in September, to lower interest rates. Trump WANTS the Fed to lower interest rates. He ha sbeen pressuring them as much as he can to lower rates. He NEEDS lower rates to lower the US debt service. So this "rigged" report is trying to accomplish exactly what Trump wants to have happen!
It all makes me wonder--who exactly rigged this report? The head of the BLS or the guy who lies constantly?
It all makes me wonder--who exactly rigged this report? The head of the BLS or the guy who lies constantly?
The question assumes that the report was rigged. I would want more than the word of the current President to even consider the possibility that a team of professional statisticians would deliberately set out to misrepresent the data they analyse.
It all makes me wonder--who exactly rigged this report? The head of the BLS or the guy who lies constantly?
The question assumes that the report was rigged. I would want more than the word of the current President to even consider the possibility that a team of professional statisticians would deliberately set out to misrepresent the data they analyse.
Yeah, surely everyone knows if you want to change the headline figure for something you simply change the methodology, reclassify some component parts, or leave out those elements sending figures in the wrong direction. Then you tack on some mumble words about updated formulae meaning figures are not directly comparable with previous months/years.
It all makes me wonder--who exactly rigged this report? The head of the BLS or the guy who lies constantly?
The question assumes that the report was rigged. I would want more than the word of the current President to even consider the possibility that a team of professional statisticians would deliberately set out to misrepresent the data they analyse.
Yeah, surely everyone knows if you want to change the headline figure for something you simply change the methodology, reclassify some component parts, or leave out those elements sending figures in the wrong direction. Then you tack on some mumble words about updated formulae meaning figures are not directly comparable with previous months/years.
But, I'd still want more than the word of the current President to consider the possibility that Ms McEntarfer wanted to "change the headline figure", that she instructed her team to change the methodology in some way with the intent to discredit the policies of the current President and/or to support the previous Presidency.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons to change methodology. There may be a need for different statistical data, there may be changes in circumstances that mean some parts of the analysis are no longer relevant (the classic example being measures of inflation based on a "basket" of items, when what people buy changes this basket may need to be revised to better match what people are spending their money on), there may be new statistical models that are more appropriate. Reports from statistical units should provide sufficient information on methodology to allow peers to know what's been done, and especially information on revisions to methodology, something much more than "mumble words" (at least for those who understand the statistical methods used - admittedly that rarely includes politicians or journalists who make use of those reports).
Changing methodology to achieve a particular output that favours particular political positions, whether that's under the personal initiative of individual statisticians or following direction from politicians (and, that can include firing people who don't give the "right answer") is not a legitimate reason.
Comments
No. I can't even see why you would think this. Trump's presidency ends if/when--
-- He dies in office.
-- His term ends and he doesn't find a way around the constitutional two-term limit.
-- He is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
-- The VP invokes the 25th amendment and a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree.
Going after Obama wouldn't trigger any of these things. He's already gotten away with much worse.
You are of course correct but one can wish
I think you are referring to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. There are two steps to this
Step one: the VP along with the majority of the principle offers of the deparments of the executive branch or other body as Congress may provide can convey to the president pro tempore and Speaker of the House the president is no longer able to carry out his/her duties, the VP will immediately assume the responsibilities of the president.
However--and this is step two--if the president challenges that declaration, it can be referred to the congress, and if 2/3 of both houses agree, VP can continue to be the Acting President .
Note, in both instances, the president is not removed from office, only relieved of duties, the VP is just the Acting President during this time.
Section Four reads:
Much easier just to impeach the guy and be done with it.
Nothing easy about that.
Impeach and convict. Still, less complicated than the 25th.
Smithsonian removes mentions of Trump's two impeachments from National Museum of American History
I'm not sure I'd call it "much easier", but something that requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives (impeachment) is easier than something that requires a two-thirds supermajority of that body (25th Amendment).
And practically speaking, it’s really only easier if a majority of the House is willing to hold hearings on impeachment, draft articles of impeachment, allow a vote on those articles and actually vote for impeachment. That isn’t the House we have right now, so any “easier” is purely theoretical
The reality is that the “easiness” of both impeachment and conviction on one hand and the Twenty-fifth Amendment on the other is very fact-situation dependent.
And, the 25th does not remove a president, it just relieves the president of his/her duties, but he/she still retains the title. Two, even if the full congress decides to relieve the president of duties, the president can still appeal again at a later date.
A scenario say a certain president has a psychotic break, the VP and majority of the heads of the departments of the executive branch agree that president must be relieved of duties and they duly inform the President pro tempore and Speaker of the House of their decision, relieving the president of his duties. However, the president appeals to the full congress (steps in process acknowledged), after due diligence, both houses affirm the president is relieved of duties. A midterm election happens and the supermajorities of one or both houses are eliminated. He appeals again, congress cannot obtain the necessary votes, and he returns to the full powers of the office.
But here is the thing: The bad July report has led to speculation that it would cause the Fed, in September, to lower interest rates. Trump WANTS the Fed to lower interest rates. He ha sbeen pressuring them as much as he can to lower rates. He NEEDS lower rates to lower the US debt service. So this "rigged" report is trying to accomplish exactly what Trump wants to have happen!
It all makes me wonder--who exactly rigged this report? The head of the BLS or the guy who lies constantly?
Yeah, surely everyone knows if you want to change the headline figure for something you simply change the methodology, reclassify some component parts, or leave out those elements sending figures in the wrong direction. Then you tack on some mumble words about updated formulae meaning figures are not directly comparable with previous months/years.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons to change methodology. There may be a need for different statistical data, there may be changes in circumstances that mean some parts of the analysis are no longer relevant (the classic example being measures of inflation based on a "basket" of items, when what people buy changes this basket may need to be revised to better match what people are spending their money on), there may be new statistical models that are more appropriate. Reports from statistical units should provide sufficient information on methodology to allow peers to know what's been done, and especially information on revisions to methodology, something much more than "mumble words" (at least for those who understand the statistical methods used - admittedly that rarely includes politicians or journalists who make use of those reports).
Changing methodology to achieve a particular output that favours particular political positions, whether that's under the personal initiative of individual statisticians or following direction from politicians (and, that can include firing people who don't give the "right answer") is not a legitimate reason.
AFAICT the variance between the report and reality is more down to the difficulty of measurement rather than any kind of rigging.