Reports suggest that Pence called in the National Guard.

Evidence of a de facto 25th Amendment?

[QUOTE=xilman;568632]Reports suggest that Pence called in the National Guard.

Evidence of a de facto 25th Amendment?[/QUOTE]Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4:
[quote]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.[/quote]The only legislation I am aware of that has even been proposed (and which AFAIK did not become law) was proposed by US Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD, 8th District), and would have created a "Commission on Presidential Capacity..." It was introduced in the House in 2017, died, and was re-introduced late in 2020. The 2020 version would not have applied to the current [size=1][color=orange]president[/color][/size].

From my reading of the Amendment, it looks like the VP and a majority of Cabinet Secretaries (some of whom are "Acting," of which some are cult followers of the [size=1][color=orange]president[/color][/size]) could (in theory) declare in writing that the [size=1][color=orange]president[/color][/size] was unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In the present situation, they could, if necessary, renew their declaration, and Congress could simply run out the clock.

My guess is, ain't gonna happen.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568648]Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4:
...[/QUOTE]

Which is why I used the term [i]de facto[/i] rather than [i]de jure[/i].

Perhaps some of the grown-ups decided to take action.

[QUOTE=xilman;568658][QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568648]Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4:
...[/QUOTE]Which is why I used the term [i]de facto[/i] rather than [i]de jure[/i].

Perhaps some of the grown-ups decided to take action.[/QUOTE]Article Six, paragraph 2 (my emphasis):[quote][b]This Constitution[/b], and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[/quote]"The supreme Law of the Land" is as [i]de jure[/i] as it gets.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568662]Article Six, paragraph 2 (my emphasis):"The supreme Law of the Land" is as [i]de jure[/i] as it gets.[/QUOTE]You are still not getting it.

The law is as you quote it. It is quite clear that Trump has not been removed from office [B]by law[/B]. That is what [I]de jure[/I] means.

If, on the other hand, he has been removed from official power [B]in practice[/B]; that is what is meant by [I]de facto[/I].

[QUOTE=xilman;568676]You are still not getting it.

The law is as you quote it. It is quite clear that Trump has not been removed from office [B]by law[/B]. That is what [I]de jure[/I] means.

If, on the other hand, he has been removed from official power [B]in practice[/B]; that is what is meant by [I]de facto[/I].[/QUOTE]That's not how [i]de facto[/i] is generally used here in the good ol' USA. Here it usually means "according to custom or practice, but not sanctioned by law." Racial segregation in the North was often referred to as "de facto segregation," as opposed to "[i]de jure[/i] segregation" in the South.

If, say, a pistol were mysteriously to have appeared under the president's pillow at bed time, and he was found dead the next morning of an "accidental" gunshot wound, [i]that[/i] would be a [i]de facto[/i] removal from office.

It would have the advantage of eliminating the possibility of his holding any office or position of trust anywhere, ever again.

Assuming he outlives his term in office, he could be charged with any number of things in connection with the riot in the US Capitol. One possibly-applicable statute that has a special appeal is the following (my emphasis):

[quote]18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; [b]and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.[/b]

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)[/quote]

A statement made earlier today by FBI Director Christopher Wray:

[QUOTE]The violence and destruction of property at the U.S. Capitol building yesterday showed a blatant and appalling disregard for our institutions of government and the orderly administration of the democratic process. As we’ve said consistently, we do not tolerate violent agitators and extremists who use the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to incite violence and wreak havoc. Such behavior betrays the values of our democracy. Make no mistake: With our partners, we will hold accountable those who participated in yesterday’s siege of the Capitol.

Let me assure the American people the FBI has deployed our full investigative resources and is working closely with our federal, state, and local partners to aggressively pursue those involved in criminal activity during the events of January 6. Our agents and analysts have been hard at work through the night gathering evidence, sharing intelligence, and working with federal prosecutors to bring charges. Members of the public can help by providing tips, information, and videos of illegal activity at [URL="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffbi.gov%2FUSCapitol%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1W4ZEASfwrQom-eRUaUFART-PjV40ZYw7sDbFMgiHc6JPF8dggjukD6IM&h=AT3uhfOS88c4XnynMUSycm9vCDTA-ISwXS1kzfQCkOkrDI-MfIZ4TSwyF9yDUlvCcEoKXbuALQKnCUHK5GcltjSQX5CFRI79D7kbMoWOK_G4oIGL5uY0XTJ1FRR-l13WK2pU&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT251_ONVjUmIjbmbwj7TRWmpQu6Pulfpx3nOT5fxleslbYp1hrII-OtIZ1J4ToBfvzEWezqoVF6c15si6no-FjE4j-yQ19Mj1vfvDVyAWOeFSdNrb_SqVf5hvouERbAfbC2oreewNdM9GYU5e3AEbRYK5wdjVqmmM9uPf-8l362gg_6"]fbi.gov/USCapitol[/URL]. We are determined to find those responsible and ensure justice is served.
[/QUOTE]National and local media are claiming Trump himself is responsible for this. I am wondering if this is fact, or just an assumption on their part. Either way, the coming days will be interesting, and maybe disturbing. I still think Trump will try to slip away in the dark sometime soon, perhaps to the banana republics, as Bush 43 called them.

[QUOTE=storm5510;568691]<snip>
National and local media are claiming Trump himself is responsible for this. I am wondering if this is fact, or just an assumption on their part. Either way, the coming days will be interesting, and maybe disturbing. I still think Trump will try to slip away in the dark sometime soon, perhaps to the banana republics, as Bush 43 called them.[/QUOTE]I think there's a good case that he incited the riot. I've read that federal prosecutors are also seriously considering sedition and seditious conspiracy charges. These might apply to the Inciter-in-Chief. The Feds had previously considered such charges WRT the "Black Lives Matter" protests, but that was a stretch.

This riot was an invasion of the US Capitol Building that interrupted a joint session of Congress assembled to officially record the results of a presidential election. And it seems clear the aim was to prevent their carrying out that official duty. The prosecutors seem to be in a "throw the book at them" frame of mind, and the circumstances will make it a much bigger book.

Unfortunately I did not see any mention by the prosecutors of insurrection charges, which I would favor in the president's case for the reasons I indicated just a couple posts back. And I have seen the term being used to describe the riot.

If any of the rioters were armed, they could conceivably be charged with treason against the United States, but I kind of doubt that will happen.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568684]If, say, a pistol were mysteriously to have appeared under the president's pillow at bed time, and he was found dead the next morning of an "accidental" gunshot wound[/QUOTE]
Bad idea! That would be a very bad scenario. Bad Dr.S. to suggest it. Bad!
It would mean he gets out too easy.

Because:

[QUOTE=storm5510;568691]National and local media are claiming Trump himself is responsible for this.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568697]I think there's a good case that he incited the riot.[/QUOTE]
This!

Picked this up from the cervens forum. Here to help.

[QUOTE=LaurV;568703][QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;568684]If, say, a pistol were mysteriously to have appeared under the president's pillow at bed time, and he was found dead the next morning of an "accidental" gunshot wound[/QUOTE]Bad idea! That would be a very bad scenario. Bad Dr.S. to suggest it. Bad!
It would mean he gets out too easy.[/QUOTE]I can't claim (dis)credit for the idea. See [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=563685&postcount=496]this post[/url] from November 18, 2020. I agree with the assessment therein that it is unlikely to happen.

I agree he would get out too easy. But at least he would be out. All the [i]way[/i] out.