That UFC match on the White House lawn next year? Trump v. Obama, winner gets to deport the loser

Wait, this isn’t like when the Nazis opened the Ark at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Oh well.

This may be the point where the Civil War starts, when the Oregon National Guard is deployed by the Governor to block the Texas National Guard from entering.

Or, my preferred tactic: deploy local troops to shadow the incoming out-of-state troops, one to one, with body cams that are live streaming everything. Make sure that we all know what those out-of-state troops are doing.

Things Matt Van Epps will never do:

• Give you up
• Let you down
• Run around
• Desert you
• Make you cry
• Say goodbye
• Tell a lie
• Hurt you

Um Ackshually, if Vance becomes President because Trump bites the big one (or resigns), then Vance becomes the actual, not acting, 48th President, for reals.

It’s only if Vance becomes President due to the 25th Amendment that he gets to be “acting President”.

In unrelated news, a federal judge in Tennessee was determined to be an Antifa brigade leader and was forcefully de-naturalized and sent to CECOT

I mean, we fought a war based on a the premise that all men were created equal, then decided some men were only worth 3/5 of others…

It’s only illegal if Trump is alive when they do it. Maybe they know something we don’t?

The only way that can work is if the GOP gets over it’s martyr complex and recognizes that this politization is wrong and needs to be punished. Otherwise they will just complain that the Democrats are exiling Republicans due to their political stances, and proceed to purge everyone again when they take over, pardoning and installing all the lawbreakers again.

“We have certain things in common, Jeffrey…”

Republicants

Repulsicans

Reptillians

We elected a Black man twice, and a good chunk of the country lost their shit over it. We have a lot of racists over here …

“You see? The Radical Left are the real (grammar) Nazis!”

The Hatch Act is still law, it is just that the current administration is not enforcing it against their team. They are betting that there will never be someone in charge of the DOJ who would start prosecuting over that.

It’s on purpose

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

In 2006, Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker:

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat”.

And you’re still wrong because it’s the exact same 2/3s vote.

In the Senate. Impeachment is only a majority vote in the House.

Oh, I bet they would find plenty of agents who would take the opportunity to infiltrate that group of young, physically fit gay men. For Justice, of course…

And you are missing the fact that the threshold for this is higher than impeachment, for a reason. Impeachment is for fixing something a President does. The 25th Amendment is for fixing something a President is.

They didn’t want to say “only use this for documented medical emergencies” because they didn’t want to limit its possible use only to things they anticipate. But the simple fact that they made it more difficult than impeachment means that they intended for impeachment stuff to be handled by impeachment instead. They didn’t have to spell that part out, either, because it’s plainly obvious to anyone who is not making disingenuous arguments on the Internet…

The text may theoretically be applicable in any situation where the President is “unable to discharge his duties”, but if you read the requirements of the act and put it in context, it is clear that it is really meant for when the President is incapacitated.

First of all, it requires the VP and at least half of the Cabinet to agree. That is an extremely high bar, because in our current system the President selects all of those people. They are part of “his team”, and whatever is up would need to be very serious in order for the amendment to be invoked.

And go ahead and read the text - the President simply has to communicate that whatever cause the problem is over to get his job back. It’s clear that what they had in mind was an incapacitation that prevented him from communicating.

Congress has no ability to agree or disagree at this stage. It’s only after those same Cabinet members reaffirm the incapacity that it goes to Congress. And the threshold of 2/3 of both Houses simply cant be achieved in any partisan environment. Significant members from both parties would have to agree to get that to pass. It requires so much consensus that, in practice, it can only be done in situations where it’s obvious to the whole country.

It is particularly obvious when paired with Section 3, where the President himself is allowed to temporarily designate the VP as Acting President. This has been invoked a handful of times over the years, mainly for when the President has been put out for a colonoscopy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_President_of_the_United_States

The two sections make sense together: Section 3 is for a planned incapacity, and Section 4 is for an unplanned incapacity.