©2010 drkate
The recent series of “Insider Reports” discussing the disarray at the White House and Obama’s mental state in part led Lyndon LaRouche to start pointing to the 25th Amendment as a way to remove Obama, based on his ‘mental disability’.
Initially intrigued by this idea, it suddenly became clear that this is another diversion from Obama’s lack of eligibility–which is his true disability under the 25th Amendment. It would be far easier to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Obama based on his eligibility disability than to prove his mental disability. Therefore it is worth a review again of the text and applications of the 25th Amendment to be clear on the definition of ‘disability’ as a tool to advance this Constitutional method of removing Obama.
The 25th Amendment
The recent series of “Insider Reports” discussing the disarray at the White House and Obama’s mental state in part led Lyndon LaRouche to start pointing to the 25th Amendment as a way to remove Obama, based on his ‘mental disability’.Initially intrigued by this idea, it suddenly became clear that this is another diversion from Obama’s lack of eligibility–which is his true disability under the 25th Amendment. It would be far easier to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Obama based on his eligibility disability than to prove his mental disability. Therefore it is worth a review again of the text and applications of the 25th Amendment to be clear on the definition of ‘disability’ as a tool to advance this Constitutional method of removing Obama.
The 25th Amendment
The Twenty-fifth Amendment was an effort to resolve some of the continuing issues revolving about the office of the President; that is, what happens upon the death, removal, or resignation of the President and what is the course to follow if for some reason the President becomes disabled to such a degree that he cannot fulfill his responsibilities?Continue reading ‘“Disability”: A Second Look at the 25th Amendment’
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No Constitutional requirement is necessary to remove someone from office who is foreign born and not qualified for the office he stole.
ReplyDelete