1. The writing is on the wall and it couldn’t be more obvious ~~ The Dems want free reign by booting Biden out of the way.

   3

2. If the democrats are smart, which they are, they will arrange for Biden to step down for the correct reasons, one month or so past the mid-terms, so that the 22nd amendment requirement is met, allowing the vice president to serve out less than two years of term they were not elected to, and therefore allowing them to run for two terms afterward.

   1

3. My bet (assuming the worst, a Harris/Biden win) is that the 25th amendment (more precisely, section 4 of that amendment) will be invoked within 3 months.
   The fun question: suppose that Biden objects. The amendment says that in that case (and assuming the cabal persists in calling him unfit) the question goes to Congress to decide. And the President wins unless 2/3rd of BOTH houses vote against him. In other words, Biden would get to keep being “president” if Republicans want him to. Oh, the irony.
   The other point: even if 2/3rd of both houses support pushing the president aside, that’s not permanent. The VP is only acting president. At any time, as often as he wants to, the president can challenge the action under the 25th amendment and force Congress to vote on it. Yes, if the elected president decides to toss in the towel and resign, the regular succession applies (that’s section 1 rather than section 4 of the 25th amendment). But if he pushes back, the executive branch is completely up in the air for the duration, and Congress is forced to deal with it over and over as well.
   Note that the vote requirements for setting aside the president under the 25th amendment are more stringent than for impeachment, which only requires a simple majority of the House. And conviction after impeachment, unlike action under the 25th amendment, is permanent and not subject to appeal.

   1. Assuming what you assert in your first paragraph becomes reality, would it not serve the democrats’ agenda better if Biden served at least one month after the midterms, which would enable the 22nd amendment to then be in-play, in that Harris would then be able to run for the presidency two more times.

      1. Yes, if he can last that long without obvious collapse, and if the extremists can restrain themselves that long.

      2. Makes me gag to think of it…

4. Not just that, but what they are literally saying is “we obviously can’t trust the voters to decide important things like the President unaided; therefore in the name of Democracy we are going to determine a list of acceptable candidates that we will provide the voters, who can then select their choice of candidate from the approved list”.
   Because that’s TOTALLY democratic. We may not be able to govern ourselves, but we will at least give you a final say our selection process. It’s a compromise!
   The entire premise of the American system of government is that the people are the best ones to select their own leaders, and that they are smart enough and capable enough to do so. If we cannot trust the people to vote for the right candidate, and we feel we must provide them with a list of acceptable choices, then they have no business deciding anything anyway, and our entire premise of government is invalid.
   Which of course is is a message the left is happy to transmit, since they don’t want the people in charge at all.
   It’s just the hypocrisy of their “we are the protectors of Democracy!” cant compared to what they actually stand for that irks me.

Comments are closed.