Jersey Girl wrote:If they believe he's not competent, then they should follow the Constitution otherwise they themselves are subverting the Constitution!
The NYT piece anonymous author says they wanted to invoke the 25th early on but chose not to because they didn't want to initiate a constitutional crisis.
Well, what in the hell do they think they're doing when admitting that they're trying to thwart the work of the President if not drawing us into a constitional crisis?
Do we really want insiders yanking paperwork off the desk of our President? A President, whether we like it or not, was elected by our own democratic process?
Somebody needs to put up or shut up in this case because until they do, all are suspect.
The 25th Amendment was not ratified until 1967. Edith Wilson had run the country for the last months of the Woodrow Wilson Presidency after Woodrow suffered a stroke. The Presidency has shown an ability to heal itself when wounded by the incapacity or inadequacy of the current occupant.
Not the President. The Presidency.
And when you work for the President, this is not a job where you walk away and work for the President of another country (unless you're Manafort, Flynn or Gates.) You work in the Executive Branch at the pleasure of the President to serve the President. But as Chief Executive, the President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Our ultimate loyalty is to something other than the President himself. I can appreciate the horns of the dilemma that hook someone disgusted with the Trump Presidency, but being fearful that the country will crumple further if the Executive Branch is populated by more incompetent yes-men.
Tell you one thing, Jersey Girl. It's not the Trump Presidency, but rather how the nation responds to the Trump Presidency that will define this country.