|
In response to
"But I think the intent of the 25th amendment was to focus on physical and mental fitness. Impeachment is a different kind of fitness for office."
by
pmb
|
I know that you don't think that that's the standard but I still have not heard a why
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
Sep 25 '19, 11:17
|
My argument is based on text: "this, that, OR OTHER CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."
It's a plain reading statute.
I know that *You* think it's broader, but so far all I have is a Wikipedia page that does not cite much law so it is hard to respond substantively.
"I think the intent of the 25th amendment was to focus on physical and mental fitness"--again, I'm glad you think that. Under the currently prevailing interpretation currents that dominate the courts (liberal and conservative alike), the text is the beginning of the inquiry, particularly in constitutional analysis. It is such a bedrock principle that to argue outside of it today seems fraught with peril from a legal perspective.
As we have previously noted ...when the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd— is to enforce it according to its terms.’ ” United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).
Recently in Gamble, in refusing to overturn the double jeopardy dual sovereign exception, 7 justices (including all the liberals except Ginsburg) specifically also looked at the text of the 5th amendment and said: "it uses the word offense," the word "offense" means "offense" and they cited the dictionary definition in 1971, which related to the violation of a particular provision of a criminal statute.
Against this, is an argument, even with the 25th amendment SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT FITNESS for office (specifically relating to "ability to discharge"), that it is "broader"...what does the argument look like beyond "I think"?
|
Responses:
|
