The "Constitutional Scholar" Serving as the Dem Impeachment Manager Pushed an Unconstitutional Coup

The Democrats and their media keep billing Rep. Jamie Raskin as a "constitutional scholar".

Raskin did teach constitutional law. He also keeps claiming falsely that the 25th Amendment was meant to allow the removal of presidents you don't like. That's a coup. And that's exactly what a majority of House Democrats voted for. But when Raskin, a supposed "constitutional scholar" keeps making the coup argument, then that's a huge problem.

Yet here he is.

Congressman Raskin: The 25th Amendment is all about the preservation of the republic and the continuity of government. That’s why it’s in there. It was added to the Constitution in 1967, in the nuclear age, with the understanding that it could be extremely dangerous to have a vacuum or an unqualified person sitting in the Oval Office. And if you go back and you look at what Birch Bayh and Robert F. Kennedy were talking about, it was about the central importance of protecting the American system of government against destabilizing dynamics in the presidency.

The 25th Amendment was not about having an "unqualified" person, but someone who was deceased or otherwise medically unfit to hold office. It deals with "unfitness" in the physical sense, not the political sense.

Raskin and Democrats keep using "unfitness" in the political sense and that's a coup. 

Since Raskin cites Bayh, here's what the gentleman actually stated, "[T]he word “inability” and the word “unable,” as used in  . . . refer to an impairment of the President’s faculties, mean that he is unable to either make or communicate his decisions as to his own competency to execute the powers and duties of his office. I should like for the record to include that as my definition of the words “inability” and “unable.”

Just for the record.

Raskin knows all this, but just keeps waving his arms in various directions and pounding the pulpit. "Section four is the part that is about a president who for whatever reason—physical or mental—is unable to recognize his or her own inability to successfully discharge the powers and duties of office. So that’s what is coming to focus today, but understand that that’s part of a broader system of rules, which have been activated many times in our history."

The unfitness in question is mental only in the medical sense. The 25th Amendment had a majority of the cabinet and the VP making the decision precisely because they would be loyal to POTUS. That's the opposite of the scenario that Raskin and the Democrats have been pushing.

The issue remains important because even though it's been overshadowed by so much craziness, the House Democrats voted to call for a coup.

That's actual sedition. They created a precedent for abusing the 25th Amendment for a coup. That needs to be addressed for the future.

The Dems and their media keep putting Raskin up as a constitutional scholar. Now they've got him as an impeachment manager. And too many Republican legislators have failed to push back on his horrifying argument that would legalize coups while violating the Constitution.

Here's the exchange between RFK and Bayh that Raskin appears to cite.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York: And that has to be total disability to perform the powers and duties of office.

Mr. BAYH: The Senator is correct. We are not getting into a position, through the pending measure, in which, when a President makes an unpopular decision, he would immediately be rendered unable to perform the duties of his office.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York: Is it limited to mental inability to make or communicate his decision regarding his capacity and mental inability to perform the powers and duties prescribed by law?

Mr. BAYH: I do not believe that we should limit it to mental disability. It is conceivable that the President might fall into the hands of the enemy, for example.

That's an interesting angle which hasn't happened outside fictional scenarios like Air Force One or episodes of 24.

The key point is total disability, not an unpopular decision.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York: It involves physical or mental inability to make or communicate his decision regarding his capacity and physical or mental inability to exercise the powers and duties of his office.

Mr. BAYH: The Senator is correct. That is very important. I would refer the Senator back to the definition which I read into the RECORD at the time the Senate passed this measure earlier this year

The mental inability described here is medical. It comes with an inability to communicate. It's not a bunch of lefty hacks with degrees diagnosing him over the air at MSNBC.

The Democrats and Rep. Raskin have used the 25th Amendment as an illegal seditious coup. And what's more, I'm pretty sure that Raskin is educated enough to know it.

Share