.
This working group is the result of evolution rather than “spontaneous generation.”
It began life as a regular topic proposal posted 10/10/2020 in Sec. 3 (Possible Topics for Future Meetings).
The FIVE so-called “replies” through 11/28/2020 explain how it evolved into a Working Group established pursuant to a 11/28/2020 notice to each of our 189 members inviting each of them to join the Working Group.
The original 10/10/2020 topic proposal is reproduced below as the first so-called reply and the five original "replies" are now replies two through six.
The 11/28/2020 notice to each of our 189 members establishing the working group is contained in the fifth so-called “reply.”
Pelosi’s Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form Of Government
Re: Pelosi’s Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form Of Government
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:01 pm
.
Every so often, we focus on a public-policy issue for which there is no focus book.
In such cases, we still confront the public-policy issue based on newspaper articles, press releases, etc.
In other words, we are not barred from confronting public-policy issues because, in effect, we are forced “to write the book”!!!
In my opinion, this is one of those occasions.
Because it would appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is proposing to, de facto, convert our Presidential Form of Government to a Parliamentary Form of Government WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!!
At this point, please permit me to say that many of our members would be able to testify truthfully that Yours Truly has often extolled the virtues of a Parliamentary Form of Government rather than the Presidential Form of Government that has prevailed in America for the 232 years since the U.S. Constitution replaced the U.S. Articles of Confederation on 6/21/1788.
Nevertheless, I believe that the de facto conversion to a Parliamentary Form of Government is a public-policy issue which the American people should consciously approve.
Rather than being a by-product of Speaker Pelosi’s party capturing the White House and control of the Senate in November.
[NB: This is a non-partisan public-policy issue because either party could do this upon achieving control of both The White House and both Houses of Congress. Accordingly, it is hoped that the following will NOT be viewed as partisan simply because it, by the force of current circumstances, is expressed in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Whenever that occurs, the reader should reverse the terms for what could happen in the future if the “shoe is on the other foot”!!!]
**********************************************************
Yesterday (Fri 10/9/2020), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to announce her support for Rep. Jamie Raskin’s H.R. 8548 entitled “To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes.”
According to the website of the U.S. Congress (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... xt?r=1&s=1), Rep. Jamie’s H.R. 8548 was also introduced yesterday (Fri 10/9/2020). And that the “latest action” is –
“House - 10/09/2020 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.”
If you click on the Congressional website’s “summary” of HR 8548, it simply states –
“A summary is in progress.”
And if you click on the Congressional website’s “text” for HR 8548, it simply states –
“As of 10/10/2020 text has not been received for H.R.8548 - To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.”
Of course, even after the text of the bill becomes available, it can be amended in the “blink of an eye” at any point in the process. So close monitoring will be required.
There follow immediately below as two so-called “replies” to this posting, yesterday’s Washington Post and NBC News articles on Speaker Pelosi’s news conference.
The NBC News article has details about the contents of H.R. 8548 even though NBC does NOT claim to have a copy of the text –
“The commission would consist of 16 members, chosen both by Democrats and Republicans, who are medical experts or former high-ranking executive branch officials such as former members of a president’s Cabinet. The 17th member, the chair, would be selected by the rest of the commission’s members. Under the legislation, Congress could pass a concurrent resolution requiring the commission to conduct a medical exam of the president to determine his or her capacity to continue the job. The commission would then report its findings to Congress, and if it found that presidential incapacity exists, the vice president would immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Please keep in mind that, even if accurate, this can be amended “in the blink of an eye,” but even under the NBC description –
(1) there is no requirement that the 16 commission members be split equally between Democrats and Republicans – presumably if the Democrats had a majority of both houses, they could vote for 16 Democrats and, since Republicans would have had the opportunity as the minority to exercise their futile votes, it would technically be true that the 16 were “chosen by both Democrats and Republicans,” AND
(2) the 16 commission members can be solely NON-MEDICAL “former high-ranking executive branch officials” with no requirement that they even have been cabinet-level officials – OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT ANY OF THEM BE REPUBLICANS, AND
(3) these potentially 16 NON-MEDICAL pols from the opposing party could then conduct their “medical exam” of the President and declare her/him, in their POTENTIALLY-IGNORANT AND BIASED OPINION, unfit for office!!!
**********
The reason why Yours Truly analyzes this, even in its current form, as nothing more than a change to a Parliamentary Form of Government from our more-than-two-centuries Presidential Form of Government is –
(1) In a Parliamentary Form of Government, Parliament selects the Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of Parliament which can remove her/him at any moment with a simple “no confidence” vote; and
(2) Under the Pelosi Proposal, the President would serve at the pleasure of Congress WHICH NEED NO LONGER GO THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT but can simply form a Commission of 16 non-medical pols from the party that controls Congress and, LO AND BEHOLD, the President is labelled “unfit” and removed!!!
Which raises some interesting issues for the U.S. Supreme Court, for example –
(1) Does such a removal of a President by such a simple Congressional procedure comport with the literal language of The 25th Amendment to the Constitution?
[Yours Truly would answer affirmatively -- the text of The 25th Amendment follows immediately below with emphasis added by Yours Truly in the form of capitalization.]
(2) Even if the answer to the threshold Question (1) is affirmative, does using The 25th Amendment in such fashion effectively make a “dead letter” of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions?
[Yours truly would posit that it does.]
(3) Even if such use/abuse of The 25th Amendment makes a “dead letter” of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, is such use/abuse a Constitutionally-permissible use of The 25th Amendment?
(4) Even though The 25th Amendment ONLY provides for the Vice President to become “Acting President” – could The 25th Amendment be interpreted as applying to an “Acting President” so that s/he could also be removed by the same simple “Commission” procedure with the result that the Speaker of the House (next in line after the Vice President) becomes “Acting President”?
[Yours Truly would posit that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide that “common sense” dictates that an “Acting President” should also be subject to removal IAW 25th Amendment procedures.]
(5) Will the answer to Questions (3) and (4) be determined by “court packing” if the Democrats win control of the Senate and White House next month?
**********
Closing Comments Before Display of the Text of The 25th Amendment
I feel so strongly about this topic that, in the event that the attendees of our October 14 meeting do NOT vote for it –
(1) it is respectfully requested that one or more of the voters for the winning proposal take responsibility for our November 11 meeting (notifications, promotion such as the short quizzes, discussion outline, leading the meeting, etc.),
(2) so that I can concentrate on forming and leading one of our “working groups” on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal.
Whether Speaker Pelosi’s proposal is the topic for our November 11 meeting or the focus of a “working group,” focusing on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal should be a lot of fun AS WELL AS "SCRUBBING DOWN" SUCH AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE, even for anyone who is NOT an attorney and who has NOT taught part-time for New York University Law School.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
JD, Harvard Law School, 1967
Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in the World, 1994-2003
**********************************************************
Text of The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
[Following President Kennedy’s assassination 11/22/1963, Congress by the required 2/3 vote in each house, submitted IAW Article V of the Constitution (which prescribes 4 methods of amendment) the 25th Amendment to the state legislatures on 7/6/1965 and the required 3/4 of those legislatures approved it by 2/10/1967 bringing it into effect.]
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office UNLESS THE VICE PRESIDENT AND A MAJORITY OF EITHER the principal officers of the executive department OR OF SUCH OTHER BODY AS CONGRESS MAY BY LAW PROVIDE, transmit within four days 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.. THEREUPON, CONGRESS SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:01 pm
.
Every so often, we focus on a public-policy issue for which there is no focus book.
In such cases, we still confront the public-policy issue based on newspaper articles, press releases, etc.
In other words, we are not barred from confronting public-policy issues because, in effect, we are forced “to write the book”!!!
In my opinion, this is one of those occasions.
Because it would appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is proposing to, de facto, convert our Presidential Form of Government to a Parliamentary Form of Government WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!!
At this point, please permit me to say that many of our members would be able to testify truthfully that Yours Truly has often extolled the virtues of a Parliamentary Form of Government rather than the Presidential Form of Government that has prevailed in America for the 232 years since the U.S. Constitution replaced the U.S. Articles of Confederation on 6/21/1788.
Nevertheless, I believe that the de facto conversion to a Parliamentary Form of Government is a public-policy issue which the American people should consciously approve.
Rather than being a by-product of Speaker Pelosi’s party capturing the White House and control of the Senate in November.
[NB: This is a non-partisan public-policy issue because either party could do this upon achieving control of both The White House and both Houses of Congress. Accordingly, it is hoped that the following will NOT be viewed as partisan simply because it, by the force of current circumstances, is expressed in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Whenever that occurs, the reader should reverse the terms for what could happen in the future if the “shoe is on the other foot”!!!]
**********************************************************
Yesterday (Fri 10/9/2020), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to announce her support for Rep. Jamie Raskin’s H.R. 8548 entitled “To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes.”
According to the website of the U.S. Congress (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... xt?r=1&s=1), Rep. Jamie’s H.R. 8548 was also introduced yesterday (Fri 10/9/2020). And that the “latest action” is –
“House - 10/09/2020 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.”
If you click on the Congressional website’s “summary” of HR 8548, it simply states –
“A summary is in progress.”
And if you click on the Congressional website’s “text” for HR 8548, it simply states –
“As of 10/10/2020 text has not been received for H.R.8548 - To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.”
Of course, even after the text of the bill becomes available, it can be amended in the “blink of an eye” at any point in the process. So close monitoring will be required.
There follow immediately below as two so-called “replies” to this posting, yesterday’s Washington Post and NBC News articles on Speaker Pelosi’s news conference.
The NBC News article has details about the contents of H.R. 8548 even though NBC does NOT claim to have a copy of the text –
“The commission would consist of 16 members, chosen both by Democrats and Republicans, who are medical experts or former high-ranking executive branch officials such as former members of a president’s Cabinet. The 17th member, the chair, would be selected by the rest of the commission’s members. Under the legislation, Congress could pass a concurrent resolution requiring the commission to conduct a medical exam of the president to determine his or her capacity to continue the job. The commission would then report its findings to Congress, and if it found that presidential incapacity exists, the vice president would immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Please keep in mind that, even if accurate, this can be amended “in the blink of an eye,” but even under the NBC description –
(1) there is no requirement that the 16 commission members be split equally between Democrats and Republicans – presumably if the Democrats had a majority of both houses, they could vote for 16 Democrats and, since Republicans would have had the opportunity as the minority to exercise their futile votes, it would technically be true that the 16 were “chosen by both Democrats and Republicans,” AND
(2) the 16 commission members can be solely NON-MEDICAL “former high-ranking executive branch officials” with no requirement that they even have been cabinet-level officials – OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT ANY OF THEM BE REPUBLICANS, AND
(3) these potentially 16 NON-MEDICAL pols from the opposing party could then conduct their “medical exam” of the President and declare her/him, in their POTENTIALLY-IGNORANT AND BIASED OPINION, unfit for office!!!
**********
The reason why Yours Truly analyzes this, even in its current form, as nothing more than a change to a Parliamentary Form of Government from our more-than-two-centuries Presidential Form of Government is –
(1) In a Parliamentary Form of Government, Parliament selects the Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of Parliament which can remove her/him at any moment with a simple “no confidence” vote; and
(2) Under the Pelosi Proposal, the President would serve at the pleasure of Congress WHICH NEED NO LONGER GO THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT but can simply form a Commission of 16 non-medical pols from the party that controls Congress and, LO AND BEHOLD, the President is labelled “unfit” and removed!!!
Which raises some interesting issues for the U.S. Supreme Court, for example –
(1) Does such a removal of a President by such a simple Congressional procedure comport with the literal language of The 25th Amendment to the Constitution?
[Yours Truly would answer affirmatively -- the text of The 25th Amendment follows immediately below with emphasis added by Yours Truly in the form of capitalization.]
(2) Even if the answer to the threshold Question (1) is affirmative, does using The 25th Amendment in such fashion effectively make a “dead letter” of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions?
[Yours truly would posit that it does.]
(3) Even if such use/abuse of The 25th Amendment makes a “dead letter” of the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, is such use/abuse a Constitutionally-permissible use of The 25th Amendment?
(4) Even though The 25th Amendment ONLY provides for the Vice President to become “Acting President” – could The 25th Amendment be interpreted as applying to an “Acting President” so that s/he could also be removed by the same simple “Commission” procedure with the result that the Speaker of the House (next in line after the Vice President) becomes “Acting President”?
[Yours Truly would posit that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide that “common sense” dictates that an “Acting President” should also be subject to removal IAW 25th Amendment procedures.]
(5) Will the answer to Questions (3) and (4) be determined by “court packing” if the Democrats win control of the Senate and White House next month?
**********
Closing Comments Before Display of the Text of The 25th Amendment
I feel so strongly about this topic that, in the event that the attendees of our October 14 meeting do NOT vote for it –
(1) it is respectfully requested that one or more of the voters for the winning proposal take responsibility for our November 11 meeting (notifications, promotion such as the short quizzes, discussion outline, leading the meeting, etc.),
(2) so that I can concentrate on forming and leading one of our “working groups” on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal.
Whether Speaker Pelosi’s proposal is the topic for our November 11 meeting or the focus of a “working group,” focusing on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal should be a lot of fun AS WELL AS "SCRUBBING DOWN" SUCH AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE, even for anyone who is NOT an attorney and who has NOT taught part-time for New York University Law School.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
JD, Harvard Law School, 1967
Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in the World, 1994-2003
**********************************************************
Text of The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
[Following President Kennedy’s assassination 11/22/1963, Congress by the required 2/3 vote in each house, submitted IAW Article V of the Constitution (which prescribes 4 methods of amendment) the 25th Amendment to the state legislatures on 7/6/1965 and the required 3/4 of those legislatures approved it by 2/10/1967 bringing it into effect.]
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office UNLESS THE VICE PRESIDENT AND A MAJORITY OF EITHER the principal officers of the executive department OR OF SUCH OTHER BODY AS CONGRESS MAY BY LAW PROVIDE, transmit within four days 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.. THEREUPON, CONGRESS SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Speaker Pelosi’s Oct 9 Press Conf – NBC News
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:02 pm
.
nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-introduces-bill-create-commission-presidential-capacity-under-25th-amendment-n1242717
Pelosi introduces bill to create a commission on presidential capacity under the 25th Amendment
Oct. 9, 2020 by Rebecca Shabad - Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., introduced legislation Friday that would create a bipartisan commission to determine a sitting president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office.
At a press conference unveiling the legislation with its original author, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Pelosi said the measure is not intended specifically for President Donald Trump, but she suggested he was the impetus for it.
“This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents,” she said. "This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president."
The idea for the legislation stems from the 25th Amendment, which provides procedures for transferring power to the vice president in case of the president's death, incapacitation, removal or resignation. The amendment was ratified and approved in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. One of its sections provides the vice president and the majority of either the Cabinet "or such other body as Congress may by law provide" with a mechanism to transfer power from the president.
The commission would consist of 16 members, chosen both by Democrats and Republicans, who are medical experts or former high-ranking executive branch officials such as former members of a president’s Cabinet. The 17th member, the chair, would be selected by the rest of the commission’s members.
Under the legislation, Congress could pass a concurrent resolution requiring the commission to conduct a medical exam of the president to determine his or her capacity to continue the job. The commission would then report its findings to Congress, and if it found that presidential incapacity exists, the vice president would immediately assume the role of acting president.
When the 25th Amendment was ratified after Kennedy’s assassination, Congress did not create that independent body. Raskin says lawmakers should now pass the measure to create such a body for future presidents.
Asked Friday if Trump has met the threshold to invoke the 25th Amendment, Pelosi said, “That’s not for us to decide.”
Trump, meanwhile, tried to turn the bill back on his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, falsely claiming Pelosi is "looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris."
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:02 pm
.
nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-introduces-bill-create-commission-presidential-capacity-under-25th-amendment-n1242717
Pelosi introduces bill to create a commission on presidential capacity under the 25th Amendment
Oct. 9, 2020 by Rebecca Shabad - Rebecca Shabad is a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., introduced legislation Friday that would create a bipartisan commission to determine a sitting president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office.
At a press conference unveiling the legislation with its original author, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., Pelosi said the measure is not intended specifically for President Donald Trump, but she suggested he was the impetus for it.
“This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents,” she said. "This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president."
The idea for the legislation stems from the 25th Amendment, which provides procedures for transferring power to the vice president in case of the president's death, incapacitation, removal or resignation. The amendment was ratified and approved in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. One of its sections provides the vice president and the majority of either the Cabinet "or such other body as Congress may by law provide" with a mechanism to transfer power from the president.
The commission would consist of 16 members, chosen both by Democrats and Republicans, who are medical experts or former high-ranking executive branch officials such as former members of a president’s Cabinet. The 17th member, the chair, would be selected by the rest of the commission’s members.
Under the legislation, Congress could pass a concurrent resolution requiring the commission to conduct a medical exam of the president to determine his or her capacity to continue the job. The commission would then report its findings to Congress, and if it found that presidential incapacity exists, the vice president would immediately assume the role of acting president.
When the 25th Amendment was ratified after Kennedy’s assassination, Congress did not create that independent body. Raskin says lawmakers should now pass the measure to create such a body for future presidents.
Asked Friday if Trump has met the threshold to invoke the 25th Amendment, Pelosi said, “That’s not for us to decide.”
Trump, meanwhile, tried to turn the bill back on his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, falsely claiming Pelosi is "looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris."
Speaker Pelosi’s Oct 9 Press Conf – Washington Post
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:04 pm
.
washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pelosi-presidency-25th-amendment/2020/10/09/88c4c0ce-0a45-11eb-991c-be6ead8c4018_story.html
Pelosi embraces bill on presidential succession, raises questions about Trump’s health
By Rachael Bade - Oct. 9, 2020 at 5:18 p.m. EDT
[Rachael Bade is a Congress reporter for The Washington Post, primarily focusing on the House. Her coverage areas include House Democrats’ oversight of the Trump administration as well as policy clashes with the White House, the dynamics animating the historic freshman class and the inner workings of the Democratic leadership team.]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday backed the creation of a congressionally appointed commission that would determine whether a president is capable of performing his duties, insisting that it wasn’t specifically about President Trump while suggesting that his recent diagnosis was the motivation for it.
Pelosi said Trump’s coronavirus infection has raised questions about presidential succession, which is governed by the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Trump spent last weekend at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, setting off a flurry of inquiries about whether Vice President Pence would assume authority, even temporarily.
“This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents,” Pelosi told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
She later added: “This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president.”
Pelosi’s comments and her embrace of the legislation come against the backdrop of Trump’s dismissiveness about the threat of the coronavirus and his erratic response to negotiations on a federal relief package.
After abandoning the talks earlier this week, Trump said Friday that he wants a major deal with Pelosi and Congress.
“I would like to see a bigger stimulus package, frankly, than either the Democrats or the Republicans are offering. I’m going in the exact opposite now, okay?” he said in an interview with syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh.
In the same wide-ranging interview, the president referenced Pelosi’s efforts on the legislation to create the commission, saying: “She’s gone crazy. She’s a nut job.”
Pelosi declined to comment on the status of the relief talks at the Friday morning news conference.
The 25th Amendment formalizes that the vice president takes over the duties of the presidency in the event of a president’s death, inability to perform his duties or resignation from office. It also lays out a process by which a sitting president’s powers may be removed. Congress’s role, however, is limited.
Pelosi endorsed legislation by Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) that would create a bipartisan Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office to “help ensure effective and uninterrupted leadership” in the presidency. The commission would be composed of medical professionals and former high-ranking executives selected equally by Republicans and Democrats.
The commission would work in concert with the vice president to determine if a president were unfit to serve.
While Pelosi declined to say if Trump had reached such a state, she argued that medications he has taken could impair his judgment. Earlier in the week, she specifically called out his use of steroids that she said may be having an effect on his mental capabilities.
“Clearly [Trump] is under medication. Any of us who are under medication of that seriousness . . . is in an altered state,” the speaker said. “And again, there are articles by medical professionals saying this could, as I said earlier, could have an impact on judgment.”
Pelosi has been known to try to goad the president, aware that his blusterous reactions can repel voters. In the past, she has accused Trump of engaging in a coverup, implored his family to have an intervention over his behavior and said she prays for his health — the latter of which infuriated the president.
Some Democrats view her full-throated endorsement of the Raskin proposal as a bid to do the same.
The Raskin legislation has no chance of becoming law as long as Republicans control the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters in Kentucky on Friday that the idea was “absurd, absolutely absurd.”
“Again, right here, in this last three weeks before the election, I think those kinds of wild comments should be largely discounted,” McConnell said.
Trump, in a tweet, suggested that Pelosi’s purpose in pushing the commission was to make the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), president if Joe Biden is elected.
Trump associates have accused Pelosi of wanting to invoke the 25th Amendment to oust the president after she led the effort to impeach him a year ago. The Republican-led Senate acquitted him on two impeachment charges.
Pelosi, however, said that the matter is not about Trump — or for her to determine if he is healthy enough to serve.
“That’s not for us to decide,” she said, adding: “People want to know. We have to give some comfort to people that there is a way to do this, very respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based on a medical decision, again, with the full involvement of the vice president of the United States.”
Raskin said that, in the midst of a pandemic that has killed at least 212,000 Americans while many at the White House have been infected, the legislation is critical.
“What happens if a president, any president, ends up in a coma or on a ventilator and has made no provisions for the temporary transfer of power?” he asked.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:04 pm
.
washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pelosi-presidency-25th-amendment/2020/10/09/88c4c0ce-0a45-11eb-991c-be6ead8c4018_story.html
Pelosi embraces bill on presidential succession, raises questions about Trump’s health
By Rachael Bade - Oct. 9, 2020 at 5:18 p.m. EDT
[Rachael Bade is a Congress reporter for The Washington Post, primarily focusing on the House. Her coverage areas include House Democrats’ oversight of the Trump administration as well as policy clashes with the White House, the dynamics animating the historic freshman class and the inner workings of the Democratic leadership team.]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday backed the creation of a congressionally appointed commission that would determine whether a president is capable of performing his duties, insisting that it wasn’t specifically about President Trump while suggesting that his recent diagnosis was the motivation for it.
Pelosi said Trump’s coronavirus infection has raised questions about presidential succession, which is governed by the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Trump spent last weekend at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, setting off a flurry of inquiries about whether Vice President Pence would assume authority, even temporarily.
“This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents,” Pelosi told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
She later added: “This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president.”
Pelosi’s comments and her embrace of the legislation come against the backdrop of Trump’s dismissiveness about the threat of the coronavirus and his erratic response to negotiations on a federal relief package.
After abandoning the talks earlier this week, Trump said Friday that he wants a major deal with Pelosi and Congress.
“I would like to see a bigger stimulus package, frankly, than either the Democrats or the Republicans are offering. I’m going in the exact opposite now, okay?” he said in an interview with syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh.
In the same wide-ranging interview, the president referenced Pelosi’s efforts on the legislation to create the commission, saying: “She’s gone crazy. She’s a nut job.”
Pelosi declined to comment on the status of the relief talks at the Friday morning news conference.
The 25th Amendment formalizes that the vice president takes over the duties of the presidency in the event of a president’s death, inability to perform his duties or resignation from office. It also lays out a process by which a sitting president’s powers may be removed. Congress’s role, however, is limited.
Pelosi endorsed legislation by Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) that would create a bipartisan Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office to “help ensure effective and uninterrupted leadership” in the presidency. The commission would be composed of medical professionals and former high-ranking executives selected equally by Republicans and Democrats.
The commission would work in concert with the vice president to determine if a president were unfit to serve.
While Pelosi declined to say if Trump had reached such a state, she argued that medications he has taken could impair his judgment. Earlier in the week, she specifically called out his use of steroids that she said may be having an effect on his mental capabilities.
“Clearly [Trump] is under medication. Any of us who are under medication of that seriousness . . . is in an altered state,” the speaker said. “And again, there are articles by medical professionals saying this could, as I said earlier, could have an impact on judgment.”
Pelosi has been known to try to goad the president, aware that his blusterous reactions can repel voters. In the past, she has accused Trump of engaging in a coverup, implored his family to have an intervention over his behavior and said she prays for his health — the latter of which infuriated the president.
Some Democrats view her full-throated endorsement of the Raskin proposal as a bid to do the same.
The Raskin legislation has no chance of becoming law as long as Republicans control the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters in Kentucky on Friday that the idea was “absurd, absolutely absurd.”
“Again, right here, in this last three weeks before the election, I think those kinds of wild comments should be largely discounted,” McConnell said.
Trump, in a tweet, suggested that Pelosi’s purpose in pushing the commission was to make the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), president if Joe Biden is elected.
Trump associates have accused Pelosi of wanting to invoke the 25th Amendment to oust the president after she led the effort to impeach him a year ago. The Republican-led Senate acquitted him on two impeachment charges.
Pelosi, however, said that the matter is not about Trump — or for her to determine if he is healthy enough to serve.
“That’s not for us to decide,” she said, adding: “People want to know. We have to give some comfort to people that there is a way to do this, very respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based on a medical decision, again, with the full involvement of the vice president of the United States.”
Raskin said that, in the midst of a pandemic that has killed at least 212,000 Americans while many at the White House have been infected, the legislation is critical.
“What happens if a president, any president, ends up in a coma or on a ventilator and has made no provisions for the temporary transfer of power?” he asked.
Still Waiting For Legislative Text – 10/19/2020
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:54 am
.
As reported above, if you clicked on the Congressional website for H.R. 8548, it simply said –
“As of 10/10/2020 text has not been received for H.R.8548 - To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.”
The website has been checked at the close of business of each working day since then and the only change has been to the date at the beginning of the quotation – which currently reads 10/20/2020.
[Though why it should have been changed to 10/20/2020 on 10/19/2020 is a mystery – how does the House know already on Oct 19 that the text will not be received on Oct 20???]
*******************************
The “closing comments” section of the foregoing posting said that I would request that one or more of the voters for the focus book for our Nov 11 meeting to take responsibility vis-à-vis our Nov 11 meeting for notifications, promotion such as the short quizzes, discussion outline, leading the meeting, etc. – so that I could be freed up to form and lead one of our Working Groups that will focus on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal.
Since her proposal appears to be proceeding at a glacial pace, I informed the attendees of our Oct 14 meeting that I would undertake my normal responsibilities vis-à-vis our Nov 11 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
PS - The Congressional website will, of course, continue to be checked at the close of business of each working day for the text of H.R. 8548.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:54 am
.
As reported above, if you clicked on the Congressional website for H.R. 8548, it simply said –
“As of 10/10/2020 text has not been received for H.R.8548 - To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and for other purposes. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.”
The website has been checked at the close of business of each working day since then and the only change has been to the date at the beginning of the quotation – which currently reads 10/20/2020.
[Though why it should have been changed to 10/20/2020 on 10/19/2020 is a mystery – how does the House know already on Oct 19 that the text will not be received on Oct 20???]
*******************************
The “closing comments” section of the foregoing posting said that I would request that one or more of the voters for the focus book for our Nov 11 meeting to take responsibility vis-à-vis our Nov 11 meeting for notifications, promotion such as the short quizzes, discussion outline, leading the meeting, etc. – so that I could be freed up to form and lead one of our Working Groups that will focus on Speaker Pelosi’s proposal.
Since her proposal appears to be proceeding at a glacial pace, I informed the attendees of our Oct 14 meeting that I would undertake my normal responsibilities vis-à-vis our Nov 11 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
PS - The Congressional website will, of course, continue to be checked at the close of business of each working day for the text of H.R. 8548.
The Text of H.R. 8648 – FINALLY !!!
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:02 pm
.
Yesterday (Mon Nov 23), the DAILY search was FINALLY REWARDED with the text of H.R 8648 on www.congress.gov > bill > 116th-congress > house-bill > 8548 > text?r=1&s=1.
Here it is –
Several comments are in order at this point –
(1) The SIX-WEEK DELAY in providing the text of H.R. 8548 (which, per www.congress.gov, ordinarily takes only a few days) has myriad implications.
(2) In trying to fathom those myriad implications, it is respectfully recommended that the reader review the comments provided in the original posting to which this will be the fourth so-called reply.
(3) It is probably safe to assume that Speaker Pelosi is finally signaling an intention to move ahead with her de facto parliamentary form of government. [NB: All she can do is signal at this point because President Trump will NOT sign her H.R. 8548 before leaving office and H.R. 8548 will die in January at the end of the 116th Congress – requiring a resurrection in the 117th Congress.]
(4) It would appear that passage of the “Resurrected H.R. 8548” in the 117th Congress will depend on (A) Democrats winning both special elections in Georgia for the U.S. Senate in order to control both houses of Congress, and (B) the goodwill of a President Biden assuming he survives the legal challenges to his election. [NB: His goodwill would be necessary because there has been considerable speculation that H.R. 8548 is aimed at him OR, ALTERNATIVELY, his goodwill would be necessary because H.R. 8548 is obviously aimed at pressuring him and all subsequent Presidents to BOW TO ALL Congressional legislative wishes following passage of the new bill WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF SPEAKER PELOSI’S NEW PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT.]
*****
WHY SPEAKER PELOSI IS DE FACTO PROPOSING A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Re the immediately-preceding paragraph, quite a few of our members have asked why it seems so obvious to the undersigned that Speaker Pelosi is de facto proposing a parliamentary form of government.
Granted that the title of the bill is “H.R. 8548 To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and other purposes.”
HOWEVER, the Constitution’s 25th Amendment already provides that a majority of the Cabinet members can do precisely that.
ACCORDINGLY, it would appear obvious that the only reason for creating a second group under the 25th Amendment for what Speaker Pelosi claims is precisely the same purpose is otherwise laughable.
ESPECIALLY, when the last 3.5 years have featured claims by Speaker Pelosi and her allies that whenever President Trump disagrees with them politically, he is mentally deficient and/or unfit for office -- two of the four reasons for which the proposed Commission can remove a President from officer per Sec. 3(b) of H.R. 8548.
AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when provisions of H.R. 8548 specify that the Commission, which will now compete with the Cabinet in removing Presidents, IS ENTIRELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS!!!
THE DEFINITION OF A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS A CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY!!!
AND I DEFY SPEAKER PELOSI TO CLAIM THAT HER FOURTH PRETEXT FOR REMOVING PRESIDENTS (per Sec. 3(b)(4) of H.R. 8548 that the legislative body’s Commission can remove a President for “Any other condition or contingency rendering the President unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President”) DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONGRESS CAN REMOVE PRESIDENTS FOR MERE POLITICAL DIFFERENCES!!!
AFTER ALL, what is to prevent 17 pols composing the legislature’s Commission from making a determination that a political disagreement between the President and the legislature renders the President “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President”???
DOES ANYONE THINK that the U.S. Supreme Court, which regularly refuses to get involved in political disputes between the other two branches of government, would get involved in such a political dispute as just described between the other two branches of government???
ESPECIALLY WHEN the language of H.R. 8548 is so clear that the 17 pols have the power to remove a President who is “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President” IN THE OPINION OF THE LEGISLATURE’S 17 POLS???
DOES ANYONE THINK the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene in a dispute between the other two branches of government WHICH IT NEVER DOES – in order to substitute for the opinion of the 17 pols the opinion of the NINE (or however-many-ever we will soon have) Supreme Court Justices whether the President is “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of President”???
AFTER ALL, for “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court, H.R. 8548 says it is the opinion of the 17 pols, not the opinion of the Supreme Court justices!!!
NEVERTHELESS, ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AFTER THAT DIATRIBE IS STILL WELCOME TO SERVE ON OUR WORKING COMMITTEE!!!
*****
Reading Liberally Procedural Considerations
It is obvious that we need to form one of our “Working Groups” to deal with this imbroglio.
After all, as noted in the original posting to which this is a so-called reply, this legislation can be amended “in the blink of an eye” – indeed, it can undergo changes before it is resurrected in January in the 117th Congress.
If it begins to move, it can be enacted in only a matter of days.
[For an example of how quickly legislation can be enacted, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was introduced by Speaker Pelosi 1/28/2008, passed by the House of Representatives 1/29/2008, passed in a slightly-different version by the Senate 2/7/2008 with the Senate version passed by the House later on 2/7/2008, and signed into law by President Bush on 2/13/2008.]
Since it would appear that we will have more than a month to analyze the existing H.R. 8548 before the 117th Congress convenes, and then be ready to react to anything that happens thereafter, no matter how quickly or slowly that happens –
(1) there is no need at this point for any changes to the way we handle our monthly meetings (Dec 9, Jan 13, etc.), and
(2) in our next weekly e-mail (pre-dawn Sat Nov 28) which, per our ordinary schedule, will be promoting the Suggested Answers to this month’s Short Quiz, I will announce the formation of the H.R. 8548 Working Group and invite to join all of our 188 members who might have an interest in this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:02 pm
.
Yesterday (Mon Nov 23), the DAILY search was FINALLY REWARDED with the text of H.R 8648 on www.congress.gov > bill > 116th-congress > house-bill > 8548 > text?r=1&s=1.
Here it is –
Several comments are in order at this point –
(1) The SIX-WEEK DELAY in providing the text of H.R. 8548 (which, per www.congress.gov, ordinarily takes only a few days) has myriad implications.
(2) In trying to fathom those myriad implications, it is respectfully recommended that the reader review the comments provided in the original posting to which this will be the fourth so-called reply.
(3) It is probably safe to assume that Speaker Pelosi is finally signaling an intention to move ahead with her de facto parliamentary form of government. [NB: All she can do is signal at this point because President Trump will NOT sign her H.R. 8548 before leaving office and H.R. 8548 will die in January at the end of the 116th Congress – requiring a resurrection in the 117th Congress.]
(4) It would appear that passage of the “Resurrected H.R. 8548” in the 117th Congress will depend on (A) Democrats winning both special elections in Georgia for the U.S. Senate in order to control both houses of Congress, and (B) the goodwill of a President Biden assuming he survives the legal challenges to his election. [NB: His goodwill would be necessary because there has been considerable speculation that H.R. 8548 is aimed at him OR, ALTERNATIVELY, his goodwill would be necessary because H.R. 8548 is obviously aimed at pressuring him and all subsequent Presidents to BOW TO ALL Congressional legislative wishes following passage of the new bill WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF SPEAKER PELOSI’S NEW PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT.]
*****
WHY SPEAKER PELOSI IS DE FACTO PROPOSING A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Re the immediately-preceding paragraph, quite a few of our members have asked why it seems so obvious to the undersigned that Speaker Pelosi is de facto proposing a parliamentary form of government.
Granted that the title of the bill is “H.R. 8548 To establish the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, and other purposes.”
HOWEVER, the Constitution’s 25th Amendment already provides that a majority of the Cabinet members can do precisely that.
ACCORDINGLY, it would appear obvious that the only reason for creating a second group under the 25th Amendment for what Speaker Pelosi claims is precisely the same purpose is otherwise laughable.
ESPECIALLY, when the last 3.5 years have featured claims by Speaker Pelosi and her allies that whenever President Trump disagrees with them politically, he is mentally deficient and/or unfit for office -- two of the four reasons for which the proposed Commission can remove a President from officer per Sec. 3(b) of H.R. 8548.
AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY when provisions of H.R. 8548 specify that the Commission, which will now compete with the Cabinet in removing Presidents, IS ENTIRELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS!!!
THE DEFINITION OF A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS A CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY!!!
AND I DEFY SPEAKER PELOSI TO CLAIM THAT HER FOURTH PRETEXT FOR REMOVING PRESIDENTS (per Sec. 3(b)(4) of H.R. 8548 that the legislative body’s Commission can remove a President for “Any other condition or contingency rendering the President unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President”) DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONGRESS CAN REMOVE PRESIDENTS FOR MERE POLITICAL DIFFERENCES!!!
AFTER ALL, what is to prevent 17 pols composing the legislature’s Commission from making a determination that a political disagreement between the President and the legislature renders the President “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President”???
DOES ANYONE THINK that the U.S. Supreme Court, which regularly refuses to get involved in political disputes between the other two branches of government, would get involved in such a political dispute as just described between the other two branches of government???
ESPECIALLY WHEN the language of H.R. 8548 is so clear that the 17 pols have the power to remove a President who is “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of the President” IN THE OPINION OF THE LEGISLATURE’S 17 POLS???
DOES ANYONE THINK the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene in a dispute between the other two branches of government WHICH IT NEVER DOES – in order to substitute for the opinion of the 17 pols the opinion of the NINE (or however-many-ever we will soon have) Supreme Court Justices whether the President is “unable to execute the powers and duties of the office of President”???
AFTER ALL, for “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court, H.R. 8548 says it is the opinion of the 17 pols, not the opinion of the Supreme Court justices!!!
NEVERTHELESS, ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME AFTER THAT DIATRIBE IS STILL WELCOME TO SERVE ON OUR WORKING COMMITTEE!!!
*****
Reading Liberally Procedural Considerations
It is obvious that we need to form one of our “Working Groups” to deal with this imbroglio.
After all, as noted in the original posting to which this is a so-called reply, this legislation can be amended “in the blink of an eye” – indeed, it can undergo changes before it is resurrected in January in the 117th Congress.
If it begins to move, it can be enacted in only a matter of days.
[For an example of how quickly legislation can be enacted, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was introduced by Speaker Pelosi 1/28/2008, passed by the House of Representatives 1/29/2008, passed in a slightly-different version by the Senate 2/7/2008 with the Senate version passed by the House later on 2/7/2008, and signed into law by President Bush on 2/13/2008.]
Since it would appear that we will have more than a month to analyze the existing H.R. 8548 before the 117th Congress convenes, and then be ready to react to anything that happens thereafter, no matter how quickly or slowly that happens –
(1) there is no need at this point for any changes to the way we handle our monthly meetings (Dec 9, Jan 13, etc.), and
(2) in our next weekly e-mail (pre-dawn Sat Nov 28) which, per our ordinary schedule, will be promoting the Suggested Answers to this month’s Short Quiz, I will announce the formation of the H.R. 8548 Working Group and invite to join all of our 188 members who might have an interest in this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
John Karls
CALL-TO-ACTION INVITATION TO JOIN OUR WORKING GROUP
.
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:06 am
.
There follows our weekly e-mail of earlier this morning to our 189 members.
As mentioned at the end of the immediately-preceding section called a “reply” - all of our members are invited to join our Working Group on Speaker Pelosi’s Proposed Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government.
The reason for posting it here is so that any readers of this website who are not among our 189 members but who might be interested in joining the Working Group will feel welcome.
They need only send an e-mail to ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com with the message “Working Group.”
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Call-To-Action Invitation to Join Our Working Group Re Speaker Pelosi’s Proposed Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government PLUS Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz re “Great Society: A New History” by Amity Shlaes for Dec 9 Mtg
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, November 28, 2020
To: To Each of Our 189 Members One-By-One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Each of Our 189 Members One-By-One – for reasons explained in the 4 postings in Sec. 2 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org
Dear Friends,
Second things first -
The Suggested Answers to this month’s Short Quiz entitled “The Great Society - The Basics” are available at viewtopic.php?f=614&t=1992&sid=c338121a ... e7f75d24bd.
Our focus book for Wed Dec 9 is “Great Society: A New History” by Amity Shlaes (HarperCollins 11/19/2019 – 429 pages sans notes/index/etc. – $17.99 paperback released Nov 24 + shipping or $11.99 Kindle from Amazon.com). [NB: The Salt Lake COUNTY Library has 10 of 10 copies available with 0 holds; and the Salt Lake CITY Library has 1 of 2 copies available with 0 holds.]
Book description, author bio and book-review excerpts are available at viewtopic.php?f=612&t=1987&sid=a4495463 ... 29bd16205f.
Wed Dec 9 Mtg – 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm MDT via Zoom.
Please RSVP by hitting your Reply Button and typing RSVP if you haven’t done so already. There is nothing further you need to do such as any special Zoom training. We will send all RSVP’s a few days in advance a URL and meeting name/password.
**********
CALL TO ACTION – YOUR INVITATION TO JOIN OUR WORKING GROUP ON SPEAKER PELOSI’S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL (H.R. 8548) FOR A PARLIAMENTARY (VS. PRESIDENTIAL) FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a majority of the President’s Cabinet to remove the President if they “declare that the President is unable to discharge the duties of his (sic - s.b. “her or his”) office.”
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment also provides that a President can be removed by “such other body as Congress may by law provide.”
H.R. 8548 proposes setting up a Congressional Commission of, in its most dangerous alternative, 17 politicians who decide the President is “unfit” because s/he disagrees with Congress on one or more political issues.
That is the definition of a Parliamentary Form of Government – a chief executive who serves at the pleasure of the legislative body. Which power to remove can be used, short of removal, as a club to compel surrender.
Long-time Reading Liberally members know that I have often extolled the virtues of a Parliamentary Form of Government. However, I do NOT believe that it should be imposed by the legislature without the American people focusing on, and approving, what is happening.
A Working Group is needed because H.R. 8548 can be amended “at the blink of an eye” so one of our traditional Working Groups that can stay on top of the issue is appropriate.
Additional information is available at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=1978&sid=c338121a ... e7f75d24bd.
If you would like to join the Working Group, please press “Reply” and type “Working Group.”
***********
We also look forward to seeing/hearing each of you on Wed Dec 9!!!
And we hope that everyone with an interest in changing from a Presidential to a Parliamentary form of government – and whether that is done without the approval of the American people – will join our Working Group.
Please be well!!!
Your friend,
John K.
PS -- To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."
Originally Posted by johnkarls » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:06 am
.
There follows our weekly e-mail of earlier this morning to our 189 members.
As mentioned at the end of the immediately-preceding section called a “reply” - all of our members are invited to join our Working Group on Speaker Pelosi’s Proposed Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government.
The reason for posting it here is so that any readers of this website who are not among our 189 members but who might be interested in joining the Working Group will feel welcome.
They need only send an e-mail to ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com with the message “Working Group.”
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Call-To-Action Invitation to Join Our Working Group Re Speaker Pelosi’s Proposed Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government PLUS Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz re “Great Society: A New History” by Amity Shlaes for Dec 9 Mtg
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, November 28, 2020
To: To Each of Our 189 Members One-By-One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Each of Our 189 Members One-By-One – for reasons explained in the 4 postings in Sec. 2 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org
Dear Friends,
Second things first -
The Suggested Answers to this month’s Short Quiz entitled “The Great Society - The Basics” are available at viewtopic.php?f=614&t=1992&sid=c338121a ... e7f75d24bd.
Our focus book for Wed Dec 9 is “Great Society: A New History” by Amity Shlaes (HarperCollins 11/19/2019 – 429 pages sans notes/index/etc. – $17.99 paperback released Nov 24 + shipping or $11.99 Kindle from Amazon.com). [NB: The Salt Lake COUNTY Library has 10 of 10 copies available with 0 holds; and the Salt Lake CITY Library has 1 of 2 copies available with 0 holds.]
Book description, author bio and book-review excerpts are available at viewtopic.php?f=612&t=1987&sid=a4495463 ... 29bd16205f.
Wed Dec 9 Mtg – 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm MDT via Zoom.
Please RSVP by hitting your Reply Button and typing RSVP if you haven’t done so already. There is nothing further you need to do such as any special Zoom training. We will send all RSVP’s a few days in advance a URL and meeting name/password.
**********
CALL TO ACTION – YOUR INVITATION TO JOIN OUR WORKING GROUP ON SPEAKER PELOSI’S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL (H.R. 8548) FOR A PARLIAMENTARY (VS. PRESIDENTIAL) FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits a majority of the President’s Cabinet to remove the President if they “declare that the President is unable to discharge the duties of his (sic - s.b. “her or his”) office.”
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment also provides that a President can be removed by “such other body as Congress may by law provide.”
H.R. 8548 proposes setting up a Congressional Commission of, in its most dangerous alternative, 17 politicians who decide the President is “unfit” because s/he disagrees with Congress on one or more political issues.
That is the definition of a Parliamentary Form of Government – a chief executive who serves at the pleasure of the legislative body. Which power to remove can be used, short of removal, as a club to compel surrender.
Long-time Reading Liberally members know that I have often extolled the virtues of a Parliamentary Form of Government. However, I do NOT believe that it should be imposed by the legislature without the American people focusing on, and approving, what is happening.
A Working Group is needed because H.R. 8548 can be amended “at the blink of an eye” so one of our traditional Working Groups that can stay on top of the issue is appropriate.
Additional information is available at viewtopic.php?f=150&t=1978&sid=c338121a ... e7f75d24bd.
If you would like to join the Working Group, please press “Reply” and type “Working Group.”
***********
We also look forward to seeing/hearing each of you on Wed Dec 9!!!
And we hope that everyone with an interest in changing from a Presidential to a Parliamentary form of government – and whether that is done without the approval of the American people – will join our Working Group.
Please be well!!!
Your friend,
John K.
PS -- To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."
Administrative Post
.
This is an administrative post to establish coherent ordering of postings in this Section 8 –
FIRST, The Iran Nuclear-Deal (aka JCPOA) Working Group
SECOND, any additional postings about the Iran Nuclear-Deal Working Group
THIRD, Speaker Pelosi’s Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government Working Group
FOURTH, any additional postings about the Speaker Pelosi Working Group
This is an administrative post to establish coherent ordering of postings in this Section 8 –
FIRST, The Iran Nuclear-Deal (aka JCPOA) Working Group
SECOND, any additional postings about the Iran Nuclear-Deal Working Group
THIRD, Speaker Pelosi’s Parliamentary (vs. Presidential) Form of Government Working Group
FOURTH, any additional postings about the Speaker Pelosi Working Group
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests