Legal expert shoots down Dems' 25th Amendment obsession

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (video screenshot)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and dozens of media figures have demanded that President Trump’s Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office, accusing him of inciting the rioting at the Capitol on Wednesday.

The amendment, however, gives the Cabinet authority to remove a president who cannot perform his duties due to being physically incapacitated.

Consequently, Pelosi and Schumer are demonstrating “their profound ignorance of the Constitution,” contends Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.

“The objective of the Democratic leaders is to score political points by further demonizing Trump during the last two weeks of his presidency,” he wrote in a column.

“In blaming Trump for ‘inciting’ the criminal acts of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, the two Democrats are demanding that Vice President Mike Pence and a majority of the Cabinet declare that Trump is ‘unable’ to perform the duties of the presidency,” Jarrett explained.

Pence reportedly has said such a move is not on the table.

Jarrett acknowledged that the amendment does not define incapacity, but the authors of the amendment, which was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, “made it clear that it was not intended to facilitate the removal of an unpopular or failed president, or for any other political purpose.”

Therefore, he said, “the 25th Amendment has no application to the circumstances that unfolded Wednesday.”

“Pelosi and Schumer don’t care about that. In a shameless ploy, they seek to bastardize a constitutional standard for partisan gain,” he wrote.

Jarrett charged that the Democrats want “to score political points by further demonizing Trump during the last two weeks of his presidency,” especially after the failure of the Russia-collusion claims and impeachment.

He disputes the “incitement” claim, arguing that nowhere in the president’s remarks were words advocating “acts of violence or destruction of property.”

“Encouraging a demonstration of grievances is not the same thing as inciting criminal acts. For the latter to attach, the language of the speaker must be clear, obvious and unequivocal,” he said.

The ultimate aim is clearly to prevent Trump from running again in 2024, as was acknowledged in a Jan. 4 New York Times opinion piece by Neal K. Katyal and Sam Koppelman, the authors of “Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump.”

“We cannot risk Mr. Trump’s becoming president again – or for that matter, even running again with a chance of winning,” they wrote.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts