Forget impeachment, concentrate on the 25th Amendment to the
Forget impeachment, concentrate on the 25th Amendment to the Constitution
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... _733.shtml
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution states, "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President." The Amendment contains other more detailed procedural rules that must be followed.
It is clear that George W. Bush is not mentally capable of carrying out his presidential duties. It is also clear that the Congress and vice president are unwilling to invoke the above constitutional requirements. In the case of a private citizen who is mentally disabled, two next of kin can have the individual institutionalized. In the absence of family members, that responsibility would fall to someone with power of attorney. Lacking power of attorney, law enforcement or another government agency, acting with a judicial warrant, could have the person institutionalized.
In the case of Mr. Bush, his family, vice president, cabinet, and Congress are unwilling to act to remove a clearly mentally incapacitated individual from office.
The U.S. Joint Chiefs, who also took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, could seek out a federal judge to authorize the removal of Bush from office.
The argument could be based on an in extremis situation in which a mentally ill president is endangering the public safety and national security and those empowered by the 25th Amendment to initiate removal procedures are unwilling to carry out their constitutional obligations.
U.S. jurisprudence is based on case law. In this case, in the absence of case law, those in authority must think originally and let the courts sort out the matter after the fact. However, having a nuclear arsenal in the hands of a madman intent on using it (the "ticking bomb scenario mentioned in reference to terrorism), leaves no time for wrangling over legal minutia. The Armed Forces clearly have the Constitution on their side in checking the "The Decider."
