By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Donald Trump’s Easter morning social media post containing explicit language and threats towards Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz, fresh calls have emerged for the invocation of the 25th Amendment. Critics have described the president’s remarks as “unhinged” and have urged his Cabinet to consider removing him from office due to alleged incapacitation and dangerous rhetoric amid ongoing international conflict. These calls highlight concerns about the president’s fitness to discharge his duties and the potential consequences of his pronouncements on global stability.
Read the original article here
The idea of President Trump’s cabinet members seriously considering or being urged to invoke the 25th Amendment against him has been a recurring topic, often fueled by concerns about his fitness for office and his actions. However, there’s a prevailing sentiment that such a move is highly improbable, with many believing that his cabinet, largely comprised of loyalists and those who owe their positions to him, would never take such a drastic step. The argument is often made that these individuals are too beholden to him to act, effectively making them the “chickens urged to kick the wolf out of the henhouse” – a scenario seen as inherently contradictory.
The practicalities and legalities surrounding the invocation of the 25th Amendment are frequently cited as significant hurdles. It’s pointed out that even if the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet declared the President unfit, the President could counter by sending his own written declaration to Congress stating his fitness. This would then trigger a process requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate to remove him, a threshold considered extremely difficult to meet, especially within a divided political landscape. Some argue that this process is even more complex than impeachment and removal, which requires a simple majority in the House for impeachment and a two-thirds vote in the Senate for conviction.
Furthermore, there’s a strong belief that invoking the 25th Amendment would likely end up at the Supreme Court. The interpretation of “beyond a reasonable doubt” concerning a president’s mental or physical incapacitation is seen as a high bar to clear, and any attempt to declare Trump incapacitated might be met with legal challenges that would only create more chaos rather than resolve the situation. The amendment, while seemingly a tool for immediate removal in cases of incapacity, is not considered “squishy” and requires substantial evidence.
The recurring nature of these discussions is also highlighted, with many noting that headlines about the 25th Amendment have been circulating for years, suggesting a lack of genuine progress or expectation of it happening. This has led to a sense of fatigue and cynicism among some, who feel that such calls are performative or based on wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of the political climate. The comparison is often drawn to how Republicans criticized previous administrations over relatively minor issues, while allegedly overlooking more serious transgressions by their own party’s leader.
The notion that Trump has strategically placed individuals in his cabinet who would never move against him is a frequently voiced opinion. These individuals, it’s argued, owe their careers and influence to Trump and are therefore unlikely to jeopardize their positions by initiating proceedings that would remove him from power. The idea that they would willingly “oust the golden goose” is seen as foolish, as their own employability and relevance are often tied directly to his presidency.
Instead of the 25th Amendment, some suggest that impeachment and removal through Congress is the more viable, albeit still challenging, constitutional path. However, even this route is met with skepticism, as the political realities of needing a House majority to impeach and a Senate supermajority to convict are seen as insurmountable obstacles. The consistent failure of these constitutional mechanisms to address concerns about presidential fitness or conduct leads some to despair, with a belief that the system has proven ineffective.
In the absence of effective constitutional remedies, some express a desperate hope for more drastic measures, even bordering on a military coup, as a last resort to address a president perceived as “insane, out of control and a danger not just to our country, but the whole world.” This sentiment reflects a profound disillusionment with the established political processes and a feeling that the constitutional safeguards have failed.
Ultimately, the persistent calls for the 25th Amendment to be invoked seem to stem from a deep-seated concern for the country’s stability and leadership. However, the overwhelming consensus within these discussions points to significant political, legal, and personal barriers that make such an action highly unlikely, leaving many to believe that the current situation will continue without a constitutional resolution. The focus then shifts to the necessity of electoral change as the primary means of addressing the perceived problems.