Before anyone flips out over the question, it is certainly not off topic, and here's why:
Even though my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson. was clearly mentally incapacitated and therefore incapable of administering the affairs of the Mormon Church, top Church leaders decided to throw away the LDS Mormon Church's official playbook for the sake of pursuing their own power-driven interests.
This is not exactly what one would call "The Rule of Law."
Let's take a compare-and-contrast look. then, at how--when it comes to transfer of power triggered by presidential incapacitation--the unmoored Mormon Church has disregarded its own explicit rules set forth by those charged with describing and implementing them, vs. how the United States (in its founding, relatively time-steady document, the Constitution) sets forth a procedure for transfer of power due to presidential incapacitation that is transparent and expected to be followed. Why compare the two? The answer's easy.
The Mormon Church claims that it respects and follows the U.S. Constitution which, the Mormon Church declares (through both its present-pay leaders and its officially-canonized scripture), was crafted by America's Founding Father, who, the Mormon Church further testifies, were "divinely inspired" in that effort.
This, therefore, leads to an interesting and telling exploration of the Mormon Church's "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" doctrine since, if, as the Mormon Church asserts, the U.S. Constitution (which includes its internal processes for amending that same Constitution) is "God-inspired," then one would expect the Mormon Church to follow the Constitution's "God-guiding" example when it comes to transference of power from mentally debilitated leaders to leaders who are constitutionally determined to be sufficiently cranially functional to take over the reins from the designated teetering ones.
The Constitution of the United States provides--via its 25th Amendment--a structured process whereby a disabled and dysfunctional president can be involuntarily removed from office and replaced by someone deemed to be more competent and capable. Yet, in the case of its own president, Ezra Taft Benson, the Mormon Church notoriously, flagrantly, deceptively, secretively and purposely failed to follow its own rules when it came to its flexy-fast version of presidential succession. It did so by shamelessly violating its own corporate Gumby-God "laws." In real-life Mormon theology and practice, God does not have a body in the shape of a man; he has one in the shape of a pretzel.
Here we go.
A. The Mormon Church, Its Signature Machines and Its Back-Hallway Secret Power Grabs.
We start off with a post dated 3 April 2016, by RfM contributor "StandingMan," who asked:
"Is the [Mormon] Church a corporation? How slimy is it?"
Historian D. Michael Quinn answered that question factually and succinctly. He rightly identified the Mormon Church as a corporation. Indeed, the following information from Quinn (and other reputable sources) has verified that the Mormon Church is, in fact, a government-certified corporation--one whose mentally-mindless leader was clandestinely dethroned by an autopen machine by plotting autocrats who knew how to use it.
I had the opportunity to personally point out to Mike that the LDS Corporation egregiously failed to fallow its own procedural rules of operation when it came to transferring power to run the Mormon Church from my mentally (and physically) disabled grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, to his two then-First Presidency counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson. As a result of our conversation, Quinn noted included in his published research that Hinckley (with the cooperation of Monson who eventually became Mormon Church president after Hinckley's death) secretly conspired to angle himself into the position of de facto LDS Church president--and did so in clear violation of official Mormon Church/LDS Corporation governance protocol.
Quinn records:
"By May 1989 . . . counselors [Hinckley and Monson] felt it necessary to execute legal documents giving them Ezra Taft Benson's 'POWER OF ATTORNEY [which] shall not be affected by his 'disability' or 'incompetence.'
"However, Benson was already affected by that 'disability.'
"Despite a notarized statement by the First Presidency's secretary, President Benson did not sign those documents himself. A signature machine produced Benson's identical signatures on these LEGAL DOCUMENTS,
"Without public acknowledgement, this machine-signed document formally ended an official provision for dissolving the First Presidency that had been in print for 90 years. Since 1899 the book 'Articles of Faith,' 'Written By Appointment; and Published By the Church,' had specified that the 'First Presidency is disorganized through the death or disability of the President.'
"However, this 1989 document specified that the counselors would not dissolve the First Presidency or surrender their powers despite the fact of the Church president's 'disability' or 'incompetence.'
"The current apostles have supported this policy, even though the officially published 'Articles of Faith' continues to specify that when there is 'disability of the President, the directing authority in [Church] government reverts at once to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."
(D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books], pp. 58-59,; fn. 243-245, p. 432, emphasis added)
More on how "it all came to pass" for this purported "modern-ay-revealed" proper protocol:
"In the years before his death, President Benson suffered from poor health, suffering from blood clots in the brain, strokes, and heart attacks. During this time, Benson almost never appeared in public, and First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley took on many of Benson's official duties, as he had done as Second Counselor in Kimball's last years.
"Joining Hinckley in this task was Thomas S. Monson, and the two of them received legal power of attorney to act in Benson's behalf in LDS CORPORATE AFFAIRS. Important ecclesiastical and family documents continued to be signed in Benson's name, with the aid of a signature machine.
"There was some controversy as to whether Benson's actual mental health during this time was accurately portrayed by the Church. According to Church spokesman Don LeFevere, Hinckley and Monson reviewed major Church decisions with Benson in his home, where he was attended by a staff of nurses.
"However, according to Benson's grandson Steve Benson, who later became a vocal, anti-Mormon critic of the Church that he quit, the elder Benson by about 1993 was living in a sweatsuit, fed by others and incapable of recognizing others or speaking coherently.
"Steve Benson stated that in a private meeting with apostle Dallin H. Oaks, Oaks explained to the younger Benson that the apostles rotated in pairs each week to visit the elder Benson at the apartment socially, but that Benson was INCAPABLE OF CONDUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS. . . .
"The fact that President Benson's counselors did not have a great deal of confidence in his ability to function became evident when documents filed with the state of Utah were examined by the 'Salt Lake Tribune':
"'DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH THE STATE OF UTAH ARE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE PARENT CORPORATION OF THE MORMON CHURCH NO LONGER IS BEING DIRECTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, EZRA TAFT BENSON.
"'IT IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS FOUNDED 70 YEARS AGO THAT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CHURCH PRESIDENT HAS OBTAINED TOTAL AUTHORITY OVER UTAH'S MOST POWERFUL CORPORATION.
"'THE DOCUMENTS, AT THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [emphasis added] were signed with a machine that duplicates the signature of 94 year-old President Benson. They were filed six months before President Benson . . . made his last public speech.
"'Church leaders said this week THE FILINGS and the use of a signature machine were routine, and done with President Benson's approval.... TODAY, THE CORPORATION OWNS ALL CHURCH ASSETS--INCLUDING A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PORTFOLIO OF FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY HOLDINGA . . .
.
"'ENTITLED "CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY" and dated May 23, 1989, the documents say Presidents Hinckley and Monson can keep those COMPLETE POWERS--even if President Benson becomes disabled or is determined by a court to be incompetent. . . . the Church made no announcement of the change. It has continued to portray President Benson as the ultimate power behind Church affairs. . . .
"'Fran Fish, NOTARY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, notary public administrator for the state Department of Commerce, said signatures written by machine ARE LEGAK, . . .
"'Still, Ms. Fish . . . said use of a signature machine on state corporate filings 'is certainly out of the norm.'. . . Steve Benson . . . has said that his aging grandfather no longer possesses the mental faculties to handle Church affairs.
"'"The Church has misrepresented the condition of President Benson and stated flatly that his role as prophet has in no way been impeded," Steve Benson said this week. "My grandfather has become a storefront mannequin while the business of the store is conducted behind closed doors."
"'He said a signature machine has replaced his grandfather's hand on all personal and family correspondence.”Evidently," Steve Benson said, "the signature machine had not been programmed to sign, 'Grandpa.'"'"
("Salt Lake Tribune," 15 August 1993, emphasis added. To view the actual signature machine-created signature of Ezra Taft Benson on the incorporation documents mentioned above, see "Hinckley Monson and Ezra Taft Benson's Signature Machine," by "cricket" [Steven Clark], 30 December 2006; see also, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Mormon Inquisition?: LDS Leaders Move to Repress Rebellion," under "Non-Functional Prophets," in "Salt Lake City Messenger," No. 85, November 1993)
"[Steve] Benson's views seemingly were verified by an article in the 'Salt Lake Tribune,' Salt Lake City. A reporter at the paper sifted some eye-popping information FROM UTAH'S CORPORATION RECORDS. THE PUBLISHED REPORT SAID THE CORPORATION THAT MANAGES THE CHURCH EFFECTED IN 1989 A TRANSFER OF POWER FROM EZRA TAFT BENSON TO HIS TWO COUNSELORS, GORDON B. HINCKLEY AND THOMAS S. MONSON [emphasis added]. That was done the same year that his grandfather last was seen in public, Benson said.
"'This is what's so ironic,' he said.’The Church leaders and members are saying, 'Steve, where's your faith? Don't you have faith God could raise Ezra Taft Benson to speak and lead the church?' But in secret, the leaders of the Church had amended the faith that God would do that. . . . They put their faith not in God but in the lawyers who transacted the papers and who actually assured the transfer of power to them.'"
(Walt Jayroe, "Drawing the Line on Religion," in "Editor and Publisher," 1994, emphasis added)
"[Mormon] Church leaders acknowledge[d] that during the past four years GORDON B. HINCKLEY AND THOMAS S. MONSON HAVE HELD ABSOLUTE CONTROL, LEGALLY, OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. Though a signature machine was used to append Benson's signature to documents transferring control from Benson to Hinckley and Monson, THE TWO CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY FILED IN MAY 1989 WERE DECLARED LEGAL
(in 'Salt Lake Tribune,' 15 August 1993, p. C 1; see also, Timothy Oliver, Rick Branch and James Walker, "Historical Events, Notable Doctrines: Mormonism Overview," in "Watchman Expositor," vol. 13, #4, 1996, emphasis added)
*********
B. Now, let's turn to how the U.S. Constitution handles the question of "Presidential Vacancy, Disability and Inability"
"[The 25th] Amendment Text . . .
"'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.'"
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment25.html#sthash.93ktXyGq.dpufSo. let's get down to the nuts (no pun intended) and bolts of what the 25th Amendment means and how it is to be implemented.
In his article, "The 25th Amendment Explained: How a President Can be Declared Unfit to Serve, author Andrew Prokopandrew writes:
"The president of the United States has essentially unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons however he sees fit.
"So, what would happen if the president, in the judgment of those closest to him, were to … not be in his right mind?
"In such a scenario, there is, in fact, something that could quickly and legally be done to avert global catastrophe. The answer lies in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
"The amendment states that if, for whatever reason, the vice president and a majority of sitting Cabinet secretaries decide that the president is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,' they can simply put that down in writing and send it to two people--the speaker of the House and the Senate’s president pro tem.
"Then, the vice president would immediately become 'Acting President'” and take over all the president’s powers.
"Let that sink in--one vice president and any eight Cabinet officers can, theoretically, decide to knock the president out of power at any time.
"If the president wants to dispute this move, he can, but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote. A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn’t reached, the president would regain his powers.
"Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been invoked in reality, though it’s a staple of thriller fiction. But there’s been a sudden surge of interest in it in recent months, as reports of Donald Trump’s bizarre behavior behind closed doors have been piling up, and there is increasingly unsubtle speculation in Washington about the health of the president’s mind.
"Whatever the current circumstances, an enormous amount rests on any president of the United States’ physical and mental health. The 25th Amendment exists as a failsafe that can be used if any president truly does appear to be unwell--as long as the people involved have the courage to actually go through with it, and the competence to carry it out without causing an even greater disaster.
"1) Why Was the 25th Amendment Adopted?
". . . The Framers of the Constitution were far-sighted about many things, but presidential succession was not among them. The text was vague on several matters, including on whether the vice president fully becomes president if the sitting president dies or resigns (in practice, the answer was interpreted as 'yes'), and on how to fill a vice presidential vacancy in the middle of a term (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “you can’t”).
"Most interestingly for our purposes, the Constitution’s original text states that a president could be removed from office for 'inability' but gives zero specifics about how this would actually be determined or carried out. So, when President James Garfield was bedridden after being shot and President Woodrow Wilson was debilitated by a stroke, they simply lingered on in the presidency without doing very much for months, because no one knew what else could be done while they were still drawing breath.
"These scenarios may not have been so bad in the United States of the 1790s, but by the mid-20th century, the country had become a global superpower and modern communication tools created omnipresent demands for presidential decisions and actions.
"The chaos and instability that followed John F. Kennedy’s assassination finally spurred Congress to move toward solving these problems. For once, it moved quickly, passing what became the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1965 and winning its ratification in the states by 1967.
"The new amendment cleared up that, yes, if a president died or resigned or was convicted of impeachment crimes, the vice president would fully become president. It provided, finally, for a simple way to fill a vacant vice presidency--the president nominates someone, and both Houses of Congress take a vote. It allowed for a president laid low by surgery or injury to voluntarily transfer his powers to the vice president and then easily get them back with a written declaration that he was healthy again.
"And then there’s Section 4--which is about how the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can deprive the president of his powers without his consent.
"2) Wait, the VP and Cabinet Can Depose the President?
"Sort of. There are three major parts to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. The first part establishes how a president can be quickly stripped of his powers due to inability:
"'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 temper 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.'
"A few notes here:
"First, the power to sideline the president for inability is given to the vice president and a 'majority' of 'the principal officers of the executive departments.' (President Reagan’s Justice Department interpreted this to mean the main Cabinet departments, which today number 15.) Theoretically, Congress can also create and empower some 'other body' that could make this declaration, but so far it has not done so.
"So, all the VP and eight Cabinet secretaries have to do is put in writing that the president is 'unable' and send that message to the Speaker of the House (currently Paul Ryan) and the Senate’s president pro them (currently Orrin Hatch). Then the vice president 'immediately' takes on the president’s''powers and duties.'
"Importantly, though, the veep only becomes 'Acting President.'Sp, the elected president hasn’t lost his office yet, just his powers--and not necessarily permanently, as we’ll see in a moment.
"Finally, there is zero elaboration on what it would mean for the president to be 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.' There is no specification even that it refers solely to health. In theory, it could entail not just physical inability but a judgment call on mental health or even, conceivably, poor character or simple disagreement. It’s really up to the VP and Cabinet to interpret it.
"3) But What If the President Wants to Stay in Charge?
"Section 4 continues:
"'Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro temper 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 temper 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.'
"This is a mouthful, but the gist is that the president can tell the Speaker of the House and Senate president pro tem that he is in fact not unable, and that he wants his powers back. You can imagine this happening if the president regains consciousness from some injury or ailment--or if he simply disagrees that he’s unfit for office.
"If he does this, he’ll get his powers back in four days--unless the vice president and at least eight Cabinet officials say, in writing, that he is still unable. Then the vice president will remain in charge for the time being, and Congress will have to step in to settle this dispute. The rest of Section 4 is about this contingency:
"'Thereupon, Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within 21 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.'
"So, Congress will vote on whether the president is, in fact, 'unable.' If two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote that he is, then the vice president will remain in charge as acting president.
"If they fall short of that margin in either House, or simply fail to act within 21 days, the president will regain his powers.
"4) In What Situations Might This Actually be Used?
"Section 4’s text is broad and could apply to a spectrum of different circumstances.
"The least controversial scenario would be if a president should become indisputably physically debilitated either from an injury or ailment, so much so that he couldn’t communicate but remained alive. Then it’s a no-brainer to use Section 4 to put the vice president in charge unless and until the president recovers.
"But one can also imagine situations in which the president’s physical or mental health is the subject of some dispute--including from the president himself. As a 1988 Miller Center report put it:
"'In retrospect, [Section 4] probably could have applied to the final periods of Woodrow Wilson's or Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidencies. This provision involves a sick president who either refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section basically applies to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside. He or she may be stubborn, or be in the hands of a powerful staff or of a strong-willed spouse, the latter being Wilson's case.'
"Indeed, the topic came up among top administration officials during President Reagan’s second term. In early 1987, White House aide Jim Cannon became intensely disturbed by reports from staffers about how the president had been acting. As he later told Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus:
“'They told stories about how inattentive and inept the President was. He was lazy; he wasn't interested in the job. They said he wouldn't read the papers they gave him, even short papers and documents. They said he wouldn't come over to work. All he wanted to do was to watch movies and television at the residence.'
"So, Cannon wrote a memo in which he urged White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to 'consider the possibility that section four of the 25th Amendment might be applied.' But it didn’t end up happening--Baker soon decided that Reagan was still in possession of his faculties, and the president remained in office for his full final two years. (Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s in his later years, and some argue he demonstrated early symptoms while he was in office).
"Finally, the text of the amendment is so vaguely written that it could conceivably be invoked for any reason--even one unrelated to health--so long as enough Cabinet secretaries and the VP are in agreement and two-thirds of both the House and Senate later back them up. For this reason, Section 4 is a favorite of thriller writers concocting scenarios in which malefactors use some bogus pretext to depose the president.
"Indeed, the senators who drafted the amendment openly acknowledged that if this power were to be utilized by 'rogues,' it could result in 'usurpation' of the presidency, as then-Sen. Birch Bayh wrote in a Judiciary Committee report on the proposal.
"However, they hoped that since the Cabinet and vice president--'the persons closest to the president, both politically and physically'--are empowered to start this process, that would cut down on any incentives for coup-like mischief. Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president, after all, so presumably they wouldn’t remove him from power without a really, really good reason. . . .
5) This Sorta Feels Like a Coup. Is It a Coup?
"I mean, it’s not technically a coup, because it’s indisputably legal and constitutional.
"Still, there’s zero precedent for this actually happening in U.S. history, and the vast majority of Americans are likely unaware that it’s even possible. Even savvy political actors or entrenched institutional ones likely aren’t all that familiar with how the amendment is meant to work.
"So, if a sitting president were to be removed from power by his VP and Cabinet despite his objections, it would sure feel like a coup to a whole lot of people, regardless of the technical legality. And key actors close to the president could well respond like they’re facing a coup. For instance, what would the Secret Service do in this situation? The military?
"If the vice president and Cabinet secretaries truly concluded that the president could not remain in office, they would need to document everything that led them to that conclusion and assemble an airtight public case. They would also need to be prepared for the sitting president to resist--either in the court of public opinion or otherwise.
"Basically, things could get out of hand really fast. But if the VP and Cabinet feel the situation is dire enough, it could be a risk worth taking.
"6) So, Let’s Talk about the Elephant in the Room.
"President Donald Trump has reportedly been ranting to foreign leaders about the size of his inauguration crowds his Electoral College victory, and other topics. He’s repeatedly insisted, with no evidence whatsoever, that massive voter fraud prevented him from winning the popular vote.
"Perhaps the president is a basically rational person who just has a very strange and idiosyncratic personal style. Perhaps he’s just perfectly comfortable repeatedly lying about easily verifiable facts, or profoundly uninterested in examining evidence that conflicts with his assumptions.
"But many people are beginning to wonder whether that’s all that’s going on. 'I think there is a subtext here that is unlike anything that I have seen in 50 years of being a reporter,' journalist Carl Bernstein said on CNN in late January. 'And that is that I am hearing from Republicans, and other reporters are as well--that there is open discussion by members of the president of the United States’ own party about his emotional maturity, stability.' He added: 'We are in uncharted territory here.'
"Diagnosing the president’s mental health from afar is a bad idea, as political partisans can see what they want to see, and the American Psychiatric Association has long cautioned even professional psychiatrists against evaluating anyone they haven’t personally examined.
"Yet, that’s precisely why the 25th Amendment gives the power to the vice president and the Cabinet secretaries here. Their judgments won’t be skewed by political bias against the president’s party. They work with the president up close and see him in private. So, if they see deeply troubling things, they are the ones who have the ability--and, arguably, the responsibility--to act. Much could hinge on whether they do so."
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/9/14488980/25th-amendment-trump-pence**********
CONCLUSION: So, When It Comes to Passing the Torch from the Mentally Incapacitated to the Still Brain Activated, Who Do You Trust?
The choices:
a) The lying Mormon Church's system of rigged power transfers that involves shameless breaking of its own supposedly "divinely-guided" ground rules; or
b) What the same Mormon Church declares to be the ground rules of the "divinely-inspired" U.S. Constitution.
Maybe when, and if, Donald Trump is eventually baptized for the dead into the Mormon Church, he can give us his perspective. Assuming he does it honestly.
In the meantime, consider this:
Only last month, "Salon" magazine's Heather Digby Parton wrote the following in her article, "Don’t Look Now: It’s President Pence! Donald Trump Can be Deposed, Even Without Impeachment" (subtitled: "Given Trump's Erratic Behavior in his First Few Days, Washington is Starting to Murmur about the 25th Amendment"):
"Donald Trump is in over his head. This comes as no surprise to the millions of people who could see that he was unprepared and unfit for the job of president of the United States and voted against him. He’s basically a celebrity heir to a fortune who was so entitled that he believed his privileged existence proved he was competent to run the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s the attitude of an aristocrat who ascended to the throne without having any idea what it actually takes to rule. History’s full of such men. It doesn’t often work out well. . . .
"Trump managed to convince enough voters in just the right places that his 'business success,' born mostly of hype and relentless public relations over many years, qualified him for the Oval Office. Since the Protestant work ethic and the philosophy of virtuous capitalism still permeate American culture, it’s not uncommon for people to equate financial success with superior intelligence and character. Many individuals among the public undoubtedly assumed that Trump’s persona at the rallies was somewhat of a salesman’s act, that he was playing the role of demagogue to rile up the crowd. They assumed that behind closed doors he was a smart and able businessman, making tough decisions on the fly, handling many issues at once.
"Those voters did not see what millions of others felt instinctively and that explains the shocked reaction and immediate resistance to his election: Trump’s incessant bragging, his lack of empathy or remorse, his pathological lying and even his bizarre appearance have been signs of an unstable personality. It was obvious to many of us that something was not right.
"The presidential transition was a dumpster fire with endless resignations, rumors and public humiliations. Trump’s refusal to deal responsibly with the intelligence community’s investigations of Russian interference in the campaign was worrisome. Picking a fight with the intelligence community over this was downright alarming. Still, one couldn’t help but think that the weight of the job might inspire Trump’s staff and the people close to him to instill some discipline into the system and keep the new president focused once he took the wheel. That hasn’t happened. The first days of the new administration have been a disaster.
"[Over the last month], it’s been one surreal event after another, starting with Trump’s visit to the CIA headquarters where he stood in front of the Memorial Wall--marked with 117 stars honoring agents who have died in the line of duty--and acted like he was at a rally in a high school gym in Indiana.
"He didn’t seem to have a clue that he was being inappropriate. He compounded the bad impression by sending out his press secretary Sean Spicer to insist that the crowd for his inauguration was bigger than any in history. . . .
"When the president was reported to have told congressional leaders . . . that he still believed 3 million to 5 million illegal votes had been cast in the election, causing him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, it became clear that Trump’s erratic behavior was not stopping. Leaks have been pouring out from inside the nascent administration, giving a picture of an insecure, irrational man who is obsessed with his image and little else.
". . . 'The New York Times' has reported that [Trump's White House] staff is concerned about his 'simmering resentment' at what he thinks is unfair press coverage. 'Politico' has reported that aides are trying to minimize his incessant TV viewing, and according to a report by 'Axios,' Trump is running his administration almost entirely in reaction to what he sees in the media. He sounds as if he is unable to handle the stress and is using avoidance mechanisms.
"So. what happens if President Trump cannot pull himself together and continues to psychologically unravel? There is a remedy other than impeachment. Even conservatives like David Frum have been talking about it for a while:
"'25th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4. We’re all going to be talking a lot more about it in the months ahead.'
"The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and provides for the replacement of the vice president if the office becomes vacant. (So it led indirectly to the presidency of Gerald Ford, the only American president who was never elected to any executive office.) But Section 4 is about something else entirely:
"'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 temper 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'.
"A temporary transfer of power has happened a handful of times since the Kennedy assassination, once when Ronald Reagan had cancer surgery and twice when George W. Bush underwent colonoscopies. Most people have thought of the 25th Amendment as a way to deal with a president who has had a heart attack or a stroke and has become incapacitated, as Woodrow Wilson did, with his wife effectively assuming the duties of the presidency for the remainder of his term.
"But the language of the amendment clearly encompasses other scenarios besides physical incapacitation. This topic was a subject of discussion toward the end of the Reagan administration, when it became obvious that the president was suffering a loss of cognitive ability. It wasn’t invoked then but as we now know, Reagan was indeed suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Had it become more acute or obvious while he was in office, Congress might well have had to take action as laid out in the amendment.
"It’s obvious that Trump has a narcissistic personality which, in itself, is not disqualifying. He’s not the first president to have one; nor will he be the last. But his issues seem to run deeper than that. Some observers have suggested that he shows the characteristics of classic psychopathy. And there are plenty of people who see his behavior as blatantly self-destructive.
"Of course, it’s an extreme long shot that members of Trump’s Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress would ever take such a drastic step. (Although it’s not at all hard to imagine that in their hearts many of them would prefer President Mike Pence). This would only happen if Trump really started to behave in a unhinged fashion. After all the bizarre behavior he has exhibited over the past 18 months, one cannot help but wonder: What could possibly count as going too far? It’s almost too terrifying to imagine."
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/dont-look-now-its-president-pence-donald-trump-can-be-deposed-even-without-impeachment/Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2017 05:07AM by steve benson.