4 ms·

> In my opinion, this seems like grounds for removal of the President, as he appears constitutionally incapable of carrying out the duties required of him. Wha

> In my opinion, this seems like grounds for removal of the President, as he appears constitutionally incapable of carrying out the duties required of him. What constitutional duties specifically are you referring to?

elicash 9y ago
I strongly don't favor impeachment for this, not by a long-shot (and ironically, for a lot of the same reasons that I don't like Donald Trump), but you can find the information that you're seeking about his duties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Presidential_responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... As to the subtext of your question... It's worth keeping in mind that impeachment is a political act, not a neutral act taken by judges who are impartial, and that as a result there's a lot of leeway when it comes to determining what is and is not impeachable. From Wikipedia, I think this is an interesting and relevant note: > Opinions differed, however, as to the reasons Congress should be able to initiate an impeachment. Initial drafts listed only treason and bribery, but George Mason favored impeachment for "maladministration" (incompetence). James Madison argued that impeachment should only be for criminal behavior, arguing that a maladministration standard would effectively mean that the President would serve at the pleasure of the Senate. Thus the delegates adopted a compromise version allowing impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." It's intentionally vague and inherently a political issue, where if Congress impeaches for a bad reason and overturns will of the people, those in Congress can be removed from office in the next election. It's not reviewable by the courts and literally anything is impeachable if Congress says it's impeachable.
- tertius 9y ago
  I'm not interested in the subtext, rather the duties that the quoted poster is referring to in this specific case.
  - elicash 9y ago
    Disaster response through the relevant federal agencies is pretty clearly a presidential duty.
    - tertius 9y ago
      If it's so clearly a constitutional duty then you shouldn't have a hard time proving it. Just making a statement doesn't answer the question.
      - elicash 9y ago
        I'm not sure what you're arguing, that it's the purview of the judicial or legislative branch?
        tertius 9y ago
        Not arguing anything, asking the original poster to explain his (and possibly your) claim. Nothing yet.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
ch4s3 9y ago
I guess you could argue that he's failing to adhere to Article 2 Section 3 Clauses 2 &3 but not calling congress to an extraordinary session and advising them on he he wants to deal with the crisis.

elicash 9y ago

I strongly don't favor impeachment for this, not by a long-shot (and ironically, for a lot of the same reasons that I don't like Donald Trump), but you can find the information that you're seeking about his duties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Presidential_responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat... As to the subtext of your question... It's worth keeping in mind that impeachment is a political act, not a neutral act taken by judges who are impartial, and that as a result there's a lot of leeway when it comes to determining what is and is not impeachable. From Wikipedia, I think this is an interesting and relevant note: > Opinions differed, however, as to the reasons Congress should be able to initiate an impeachment. Initial drafts listed only treason and bribery, but George Mason favored impeachment for "maladministration" (incompetence). James Madison argued that impeachment should only be for criminal behavior, arguing that a maladministration standard would effectively mean that the President would serve at the pleasure of the Senate. Thus the delegates adopted a compromise version allowing impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." It's intentionally vague and inherently a political issue, where if Congress impeaches for a bad reason and overturns will of the people, those in Congress can be removed from office in the next election. It's not reviewable by the courts and literally anything is impeachable if Congress says it's impeachable.

tertius 9y ago
I'm not interested in the subtext, rather the duties that the quoted poster is referring to in this specific case.
- elicash 9y ago
  Disaster response through the relevant federal agencies is pretty clearly a presidential duty.
  - tertius 9y ago
    If it's so clearly a constitutional duty then you shouldn't have a hard time proving it. Just making a statement doesn't answer the question.
    - elicash 9y ago
      I'm not sure what you're arguing, that it's the purview of the judicial or legislative branch?
      - tertius 9y ago
        Not arguing anything, asking the original poster to explain his (and possibly your) claim. Nothing yet.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

ch4s3 9y ago

I guess you could argue that he's failing to adhere to Article 2 Section 3 Clauses 2 &3 but not calling congress to an extraordinary session and advising them on he he wants to deal with the crisis.