312

Someone posted without an article on this. Here is the article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 116 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I keep reminding people that the 25th Amendment is not the solution here, because it requires a higher bar to enact than simply impeaching the guy. You need to have the VP and half the cabinet on board to trigger it, but then the President gets his office back by simply telling Congress "Nah, I'm good". But then if the VP and cabinet still insist, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to trigger.

Impeachment requires no Cabinet officers, and only a majority of the House (but still 2/3 of the Senate to convict).

It would be fitting, though, if for all the dumb, impeachable shit he's done, the thing that finally did it was swearing in a tweet on Easter....

[-] Soulphite@reddthat.com 72 points 6 months ago

That would be something. Raping a whole bunch of kids, and women and countries and businesses is fine... but they draw the line at swearing on Easter...

Christians are fucking strange.

[-] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

You mean “Christians”.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It doesn't seem like there's an especially substantial call for the 25th Amendment, buuuuuut the 25th isn't strictly a downgrade to impeachment:

  • First, yes, impeachment is only 50% House, 66.7% Senate. Boom, out, donezo. Taking the numbers alone without any other context, that's easier than VP, majority of department heads, 66.7% Senate, 66.7% House (which is even more far-right than the Senate).
  • However, when invoking the 25th, the VP and a majority of department heads are the ones who initiate the proceedings, and there's an active, visible struggle for power within the Executive Branch.
  • If the cabinet were to effectively throw a coup (because let's be honest: none of the ghouls in Trump's cabinet give a flying fuck about his ability to execute the law and would not be in it for the betterment of the US), then it gives a major swing in credibility compared to just a House impeachment. This is especially true because Section 4 has never been invoked.
  • I would argue for this reason that, while removal of Trump by Congress via impeachment is functionally impossible, public opinion would swing wildly if Trump's cabinet started 25th Amendment proceedings, and it also puts the initial onus on Trump to establish that he's capable rather than the onus on Congress to establish that he's not (or rather, that he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors").
  • Thus, you can maybe swing for the fences with the 25th if you can convince enough of Trump's cabinet that Trump is a sinking ship (and thus Vance becomes POTUS, debatably in his own self-interest). Impeachment isn't overcoming the numbers game, but the 25th could (just potentially) change the numbers.
  • It'd be divide-and-conquer: the Democrats all want Trump out of office ASAP (obviously, because they're sane), while the Republicans in the House and Senate would be reckoning with siding with Trump or siding with his cabinet (and whoever their supporters are) – all while the general public bleeds remaining faith in Trump as even his cabinet are challenging his fitness, and while the question at hand is a lower bar than "high crimes and misdemeanors". In an impeachment trial, it would just be "Democrats or Republicans" to the Republicans.

TL;DR: The argument for the 25th is that, if you can get the ball rolling, it might actually be possible compared to impeachment proceedings which currently, inarguably, are not.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 6 months ago

Bingo.

Vance is going to want to be seen as leading the coup, not being handed the job. But it's not happening for another 10 months. First, he needs a new Congress, one who is already itching for impeachment. And if he's waiting for Congress, he's going to wait another three weeks: so long as he only takes half of Trump's term, he remains eligible for two full terms himself.

Vance will exercise Section 4 of the 25th after January 20th, 2027.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

One rebuttal I've heard in a previous discussion of this is that Congressional Republicans might have more appetite for removing him for "medical incapacity" than "high crimes and misdemeanors" because it allows the party to save face.

[-] santa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Impeachment is a political tool, and doesn’t change anything unless removed. They won’t do that.

[-] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 6 months ago
[-] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

No he didn't. The senate voted not to convict.

[-] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago

Impeached by the house, acquitted by the Senate.

[-] HarneyToker@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

AND the 25th will work even less effectively, did you read the above comment?

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
312 points (98.4% liked)

politics

31278 readers
2970 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS