The headline by The Hill is a poor one, as it seems to be declaring that she wants the 25th Amendment invoked.
The actual article makes it clear that she wants the people running around saying the President is a nutcase and incompetent to perform the duties of office to have the courage of their convictions and follow the Constitutionally-provided process for when the President is a nutcase and incompetent to perform the duties of office …
… rather than creating a shadow government to "contain" him.
She's not wrong.
I can't speak to Trump's competence and mental/psychological fitness for office. All I see of him is the role he plays on TV. But the Mysterious Op-Ed Insider from yesterday (echoing people quoted in various journalistic investigations and resignee tell-alls) keeps alluding to such incompetence, and to discussions of the 25th Amendment but fear of invoking it because it would be … um … a big deal?
❝ Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over. ❞
Warren's point is simply, "put up or shut up." If it's 25th Amendment time, that's what it's for, and using the Constitution doesn't create a constitutional crisis (it might create a political crisis, but that's the way it is). If it doesn't reach that level, then stop using that to justify the heroic resistance (i.e., acting against the president's lawful authority in covert ways).
Warren isn't calling for the ouster of Trump. She's calling on the people who claim to know and who have authority to do so, to do so if they consider it justified.
Warren calls for 25th Amendment to be invoked against Trump
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she believes it’s time for White House officials to invoke the 25th Amendment and begin the process of removing President Trump from office.
While playing devil's advocate, I've gone back and forth on this response, but here's my thoughts as of this minute:
The standard for impeachment is somewhat established, since we've impeached two Presidents and would have impeached a third. Speaker Pelosi can certainly claim that, based upon what we know now, President Trump is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The standard for "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" has not been tested. One can argue that a President who alienates our friends and loves our enemies is perfectly capable of discharging the powers and duties of his office.
What then? If one judges that the standard to invoke section 4 of the 25th Amendment is high, then a White House staffer must do one of four things upon receiving a crazy order:
1. Act on it (my President, right or wrong).
2. Resign (a la Saturday Night Massacre, or Cyrus Vance Sr. after the hostage rescue mission).
3. Refuse to the President's face and get the "you're fired" response (maybe months later).
4. Refuse secretly by hiding the memo, not acting on the order, or whatever.
It's quite possible that some of those who already departed from the Trump Administration fall into categories 2 and 3, However, at least two sources have now claimed that at least one of the remaining officials falls into category 4.
This is actually not new to Trump. Nixon staffers were known to ignore some of his rantings. (Chuck Colson's autobiography tells of the time that Nixon told Colson that he wanted to go to the Kennedy Center; Colson pulled out all the stops to do this, and was later told that he should have just ignored the request.)
So now I can divide option 4 into three further parts:
4a. Refuse to do a little thing (I want to go to the Kennedy Center).
4b. Refuse to do a medium sized thing (draw up plans to attack North Korea).
4c. Refuse to do a really big thing (lock her up; kill Assad).
Perhaps it's just me, but I can see the justification for refusing to do the little things or the really big things. It's the medium sized things that are more troubling. Other than opportunity cost, what's the problem in spending time drawing up plans to attack North Korea, when you still have a chance to argue against doing such a thing – or resigning rather than pass on the order to attack?
'Speaker Pelosi can certainly claim that, based upon what we know now, President Trump is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.'
Based on what's firmly established, I'm inclined to agree. Even alleged smoking guns like Trump being complicit in an illegal campaign spending thing with the Stormy Daniels escapade is … probably not what we want as a threshold for impeachment.
Based on things hinted at is a different matter, but nobody indicts on hints. We'll see what happens when the Mueller investigation concludes.
'The standard for "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" has not been tested. One can argue that a President who alienates our friends and loves our enemies is perfectly capable of discharging the powers and duties of his office.'
Yup. Indeed, that kind of behavior falls more under the Impeachment category (arguably) than Inability to Discharge.
Fletcher Knebel aside, the 25th Amendment was more thought of as dealing with physical disabilities (what if JFK had been in a coma; what if Eisenhower's heart attacks had been more serious; the case of Woodrow Wilson) than mental ones.
How to make it work at all against a president who presumably can speak out and who doesn't consider himself "Unable to Discharge" (something Donald would never admit to in a variety of contexts) would be hugely difficult, no question — and is intended to be as such.
Granted the OpEd and similar reports are true, and the 25th has been bandied about conversationally and shrunk back on. One wonders if it's one of those ideas that suddenly gels among enough people to make them willing to make it happen, whereas a week, a day, an hour ago it was sheer fantasy or unthinkable.
Until that happens, then, yes, it's each individual wondering what the hell do I do now? to themselves.
'Perhaps it's just me …'
No, I see what you're saying. Little things are, by definition, inconsquential. Big things are, by definition, emergencies that require drastic action. The medium-sized things become much more dodgy — they become a pattern of disobedience, insubordination, and usurpation.
That's where a lot of criticism, Right and Left, is coming from.
As a side note, I'm not sure why there's all this aghast/agog at the idea that Trump floated the idea of assassinating Assad. We only don't do that by executive order (which can be counter-ordered by the executive) and because it makes retaliation in kind more likely.
Yeah, there's the moral argument, but "we've" gotten over that with targeted drone attacks on terrorist leaders, or maybe-leaders, or maybe just a bunch of terrorists aw shit they were at a wedding oh well, so I don't doubt we could get over it with a targeted assassination of a head of state who is arguably an awful person.
That doesn't make it a smart idea, by any means, but if that were the criterion for invoking the 25th on Donald, he wouldn't have gotten through the primaries.
She needs to remove from her seat
+Jeff Amador Any particular reason, or just some reflexive dislike?
The president who uses the accusation "Enemy of the People" phrase so loosely against what has long been upheld to be one of the pillars of American freedoms (the press) must surely raise some constitutional questions. Abuse of the power of his office may be one of the more obvious ones. The congress doesn't actually require proof in this case, as they can act under reasonable suspicion, as long as there is a majority in favor of action. They only need to demonstrate that due process of law was followed. (The Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene). https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html (violation of the constitution itself by the President amounts to either a high crime or a "misdemeanor", as upholding the constitution is one of the duties of his office… there are many others… it's like a daily laundry list with him, he just opens up so many lines of serious questions as to what is and isn't criminal, that some of it must certainly be such, once a majority is formed and able to construe such doubts in an official manner).
its almost time. i bet they even deactivated the suitcase so he won't just annihilate us all…………
+Dave Hill And Trump is not the first President to consider assassinating a country’s leader in peacetime. In fact, if you expand “leader of a country” to “leader of a movement,” there was public bipartisan agreement that Osama bin Laden should be killed. Of course, if you consider the War on Terror as a real war, this would be a wartime death.
+Nathan Eggers I’m not convinced that saying that the press is the enemy rises to the level of a misdemeanor. Even treating the press poorly at a press conference isn’t a misdemeanor. Now if the New York Times editorial board were to be rounded up, there might be a more persuasive case.
Getting back to the original topic, here's a tweet from Sen. Warren that basically (and more clearly than the article headline) states her position:
'If senior officials believe the president is unfit, they should stop hiding behind anonymous op-eds and leaking info to Bob Woodward, and do what the Constitution demands they do: invoke the 25th Amendment and remove this president from office.'
https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/1037832280952238083
+John E. Bredehoft The point is that Congress will actually decide themselves on the finer points. They will need a very long list with many potential misdeeds and many proven misdeeds. His standing legally is similar to that of a mob boss, there are many weak lines of evidence that connect him to many things of a criminal nature. He may not be convict-able, but a case must be built due to the level of doubts raised.