= new reply since forum marked as read
would render him less able to discharge his duties than he was when the people elected him. And even if an exam showed he had serious heart disease, so what? Even if it showed he was weeks at most from a devastating cardiac event but refused intervention, he would be fit until his condition deteriorated to the point that he was unable to discharge his duties.
As for mental disorder, we all know he is the mentally disordered man who ran for and was elected president. No marked and significant deterioration from his original deficiencies his voters chose in their president.
As I said, this is the viewpoint of one of the people who wrote the 25th amendment, who is still very much alive. Disappointing to hear but stated definitively. It seems to me as if it would come into play if, theoretically, Trump agreed to a mental status examination and was diagnosed as unable to discharge the duties of his office, something supposedly his voters were unaware of at election time, but he didn't address that fantasy situation.
I wanted to say that removing a president without proper legal cause simply could not be politically feasible, but it could conceivably be for Republicans; their big donors could just plan to replace any party casualties. In any case, it's moot now. Democrats wouldn't remove a president without proper legal cause and procedure, but there's plenty of cause. When will Repubs be able to? Trumpster approval rating's still in the 80s.
Politico has a very alarmed what-now article over Trump's realignment of the U.S. with "dictators and populist ultranationalists" against our traditional allies.
But let's all have a nice day.
