If you thought Democrats would eventually get over their election defeat, you’d be dead wrong. As if attempts to steal the election via the electoral college and bogus investigations weren’t enough, Democrats are now trying to change the process to remove a president from office.
From The Hill:
A House Democrat has introduced legislation to enhance the Constitution’s presidential removal procedures in response to concerns about President Trump’s behavior.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed the bill during the House’s two-week April recess to empower former presidents and vice presidents of both parties, in coordination with the sitting vice president, to determine if a president is fit for office.
It’s not hard to see why Democrats would think this is a good strategy. Among the former presidents still alive, three are Democrats. Not only that, one former president is the husband of the presidential candidate recently defeated by Donald Trump, namely Hillary Clinton. Even the two living Republican presidents aren’t exactly fond of Donald Trump, making it even more likely he could be removed, should the Dems prevail.
Democrats say the reason they are pushing for the legislation is because the current process is inefficient:
Blumenauer’s proposal stems from concern that the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which was adopted five decades ago, would fall short in cases of emotional or mental incapacity.
The amendment states that the vice president assumes the Oval Office in the event that a president is removed from office, dies or resigns.
Alternatively, the vice president and a majority of Cabinet officers can also jointly declare that a president is unfit to serve. The vice president would then take over as president in such a case.
In the event that a president refused to step down, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to vote to force the resignation.
What seems lost on Democrats is how dangerous their proposal is. Leaving decisions like this to the established political class could handcuff a president willing to challenge the status quo. It would make it less likely for real agents of change and progress to implement new ideas.
Of course, a move like this is unlikely to be implemented by simple legislation. It would more likely require a constitutional amendment to make significant changes to the process. But when has the Constitution ever deterred Democrats?
Since Democrats are the minority party in Congress, the legislation probably won’t receive serious consideration. However, it’s clear that Democrats remain unable to accept they were defeated at the ballot box. Instead, they are pulling out every trick in the book to defy the will of the voters.
[Note: This post was written by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee]