different 25th Amendment so that the U.S. Senate can “bench” a disabled president such as Reagan in Spring of 1987? ?

[Dancing Fool]

Worrying About Reagan

On Monday, the New York Times’s longtime medical correspondent, Dr. Lawrence Altman, dealt with the question of whether Ronald Reagan’s dementia had …

www.newyorker.com

“ . . . By early 1987, several top White House advisers were so concerned about Reagan’s mental state that they actually talked among themselves about invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which calls for the Vice-President to take over in the event of the President’s incapacity. . . ”

.

.

“ . . . They said he wouldn’t read the papers they gave him—even short position 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. . . ”

.

“ . . the aides ‘felt free to sign his initials on documents, without noting that they were acting for him.’ When Cannon asked a group of key aides who among them had authority to sign for Reagan, there was a long, uncomfortable silence, after which one answered, ‘Well—everybody, and nobody.’ . . . ”

=======================

This is already an out-of-control situation. And the sooner people act, the better.

I’m talking about at least tweaking the 25th so the decision doesn’t rest so heavily on the Vice-President, whose main trait is likely to be that he’s loyal to the President. And Ilike the sports analogy of “benching” a player.

How do we do it?

Your ideas please.

 

[Dancing Fool]

It almost sounds like the President was suffering from depression.

 

[Puzzle]

I’m talking about at least tweaking the 25th so the decision doesn’t rest so heavily on the Vice-President, whose main trait is likely to be that he’s loyal to the President.

The loyalty is definitely part of the point. Getting your opponents declared insane and locking them up was a Soviet move, and power/politics tends to corrupt high minded ideals. If congress wants a president gone they have impeachment, they don’t need a sketchier way.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Getting your opponents declared insane and locking them up was a Soviet move,

I don’t view it this way at all.

And if President Reagan had continued spiraling downward, what would be the alternative — just to continue with a president unable to work? I have in mind something like the senior leadership in the Senate. You’d could even have a rule that it needs to be a majority of the President’s own party. So, for Reagan something like 11 R’s and 10 D’s.

 

[Dancing Fool]

In October 1986, President Reagan felt he had failed at the Reykjavik Summit with Gorbachev. Reagan wanted a grand deal to abolish nuclear weapons. That may not have been realistic, but that’s what Reagan wanted. And Star Wars (or technically, SDI) became the sticking point.

In Nov. 1986, Iran-Contra hit the headlines. Reagan said the U.S. was not trading weapons for hostages. An early Dec. poll showed 47% believed the President was lying to them. Never a fun situation. And a bit of a poisonous situation. In addition, his wife Nancy was feuding with his chief-of-staff Don Regan. That’s a poisonous situation closer to home.

And feeling “tasked out,” where there are no open horizons, only damage-control, is both a cause and consequence of depression. It’s one of the downward spiral factors.

A doctor once told my mother depression can start off situational, and become biochem. Meaning, it can take a while. And he was a family practitioner in the days before antidepressants were easily available [still hit or miss just because everyone’s biochemistry is a little different]

Reagan was lucky to have a strong and loving marriage to help pull him out of it.

Later edit—

. . . ease him out of it.

For, I don’t believe in the “heroic will power” approach. It’s better to try different things and often try them diagonally. Find something (often] unexpected which seems to be helping, and then roll with it.

Yes, I’ve struggled with depression, just like I suspect many of us have.

I haven’t tried antidepressants, but they’re kind of my “ace in the hole.” I’ve read that it takes 4 to 8 weeks to tell if a particular one is working, some sources say up to 12 weeks. Just that everyone’s biochem is a little different.

 

[DougM]

I don't see how this topic will avoid slamming into the no modern politics wall. the 25th was ratified what 1965? or there about? So it only has a limited context. Add in that politics in the 60s is different then in the 80’s much different then the more recent politics.

So we can talk about what may have happened in the past but A) the view of politics from even the 60s is now more often effected by current opinions and views on politics so it is hard to have a neutral discussion and B) the change in more recent politics is frankly the most important part of the discussion and we can not discuss that here.

So i dont see how we can have an honest discussion about this topic.

 

[historylearner]

I don’t view it this way at all.

And if President Reagan had continued spiraling downward, what would be the alternative — just to continue with a president unable to work? I have in mind something like the senior leadership in the Senate. You’d could even have a rule that it needs to be a majority of the President’s own party. So, for Reagan something like 11 R’s and 10 D’s.

If I’m not mistaken the Vice President can usually become acting president

 

[Dancing Fool]

I don't see how this topic will avoid slamming into the no modern politics wall. the 25th was ratified what 1965? or there about?

And we’ll just have to avoid current politics the best we can. President Reagan in late 1986 and early 87 provides a great case study without current politics.

Might have been unlucky to invoke 25th with Reagan, in that things may have gone better with him continuing in office. But may have been safer decision, and in a very central way, even the right decision to have Bush, Sr., take over the reins.

 

[Dancing Fool]

If I’m not mistaken the Vice President can usually become acting president

Yes, the Vice President takes over the reins of power, but he or she should probably not be the one to make the call [with at least half the cabinet also helping]

 

[Dancing Fool]

The devotion of Nancy Reagan

In her biography of the first lady, "The Triumph of Nancy Reagan," Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty examines the complicated persona of the woman who had the most significant influence on President Ronald Reagan.

www.cbsnews.com

‘ . . . Nancy Reagan blamed Iran-Contra on the man who replaced Jim Baker as chief of staff, Don Regan. "She begins this campaign to get rid of him," Tumulty said. "And her husband refuses to fire the guy. . . ”

===========

Yes, this is a poisonous environment.

 

[DougM]

The problem is, modern politics is where the reason this is a HORRIBLE idea becomes evident.

 

[Seandineen]

The problem is that too easy use of this amendment creates a Parliamentary style system, of votes of no confidence.

 

[Don Corleone]

The loyalty is definitely part of the point. Getting your opponents declared insane and locking them up was a Soviet move, and power/politics tends to corrupt high minded ideals. If congress wants a president gone they have impeachment, they don’t need a sketchier way.

Peach mint is irreversible. Whereas in the event of a disability the President can come back after a recovery.

Presidents routinely invoke the 25th on themselves so we're covered if an emergency occurs during surgery.

 

[Don Corleone]

And we’ll just have to avoid current politics the best we can. President Reagan in late 1986 and early 87 provides a great case study without current politics

We don't even need OTL.

We could have HW suffering a stroke in an alternate timeline, or Nance replacing Mitchell in "Dave" as examples.

 

[Somedevil]

It almost sounds like the President was suffering from depression.

That is a key symptom of dementia and part of why it's so hard to catch early since it's normally misdiagnosed as depression

 

[Dancing Fool]

"But the President's performance frightened the three commissioners. Except for reciting his talking points, he was vague and seemed confused.”

====================

This is when Reagan (privately) talked with the Tower Commission for the 2nd time, this occurring on Feb. 11, 1987.

And we’re going to continue with a President who’s partially . . . there and partially not ? ?

Please understand, I am an advocate for persons with disabilities. But it’s neither respectfully toward the person nor the country to continue with this kind of bad situation. And certainly not for almost another 2 years.

 

[Dancing Fool]

The problem is, modern politics is where the reason this is a HORRIBLE idea becomes evident.

I’m glad you put it out there. But I’m not sure continuing with a disabled president, or let’s say a partially incapacitated president, is that great an idea either.

PS Please understand, I’m not talking about the usual scaredy cat solution of requiring a super majority, which in my mind just sets up a crisis. I’m talking about a straight up majority vote.

But—

We slightly stack the deck so the “Standing Committee on President Well-Being and Continuance” [my name] has a slight majority in the President’s favor. Meaning, a majority in his or her own party.

So, for Reagan, perhaps 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The one data point we have is Watergate being resolved by Senator Goldwater respectfully talking with President Nixon and telling him you don’t have the votes.

Senator Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada) and President Reagan shared mutual respect. So, best case, he talks with him, and Reagan has a good, long private talk with his wife. And then he resigns.

 

[Dancing Fool]

The problem is that too easy use of this amendment creates a Parliamentary style system, of votes of no confidence.

The weird thing, even if we called it a “Vote of No Confidence,” I don’t think it would be enough.

Looking back . . .

It’s so obvious Reagan was impaired at least from 1987 to 89. And yet for all kinds of reasons both good and bad, people are going to be reluctant to act.

Plus, I think Reagan might have done better once he got past the Spring of 87 [Iran-Contra, Don Regan, and Ronnie and Nancy’s own arguments]. But getting lucky is not an argument.

 

[DougM]

A disabled president is a HUGE issue and we have at least one great example in history and that is Wilson. Lots of evidence that he was completely impaired for a while and that either his aids, advisors, wife or some combination of some or all of them ran the country in his name.
Yes we have Reagan being questionable towards the end, but the evidence is a bit questionable as it is limited and some of it is biased by politics.

So the CONCEPT is sound. But politics has been such that the likelihood that this would be abused is very very high from as far back as you want to go and getting worse. And in the past 40 years it is gone downhill like a bolder falling off a cliff.
So this concept is interesting but it is 10000000% impossible to implement without it being horribly abused. By one side or the other. And even if it is not abused the perception will be such that it will be “sold” as abuse. As it is by its very nature something that is basically impossible to tr prove so whatever side is having it’s President removed will be tarred and feathered,

You CANT win. Short of a president that is comatose you can’t prove that the president is incompetent. Heck we have people that argure that the Twin Towers were an inside job, that we didn’t land on the moon (and that would take the USSR cooperating with the US to pull off) and that the world is not an oblate spheroid and that Gravity does not exist.
So you will never convince folks that support one president or their party that they needed to be removed. Even is 100% of the House and Senate as well as the VP, the Supreme Court and the Presidents doctors and Family could ALL say that the President has to be removed and you still wont get the entire country to agree,
So what happens when Party A‘s president is removed by 50%+1 or 66% or whatever you set up as being needed consisting of 99% Party B’s members?
In the past all hell will break lose, more recently you are ask for everything short of a civil war.

As for this topic, it is VERY VERY VERY hard to discuss and avoid the modern politics taboo. as frankly that is where the best examples of why this is the single worst idea for a US law ever. And that it could be literally the breaking point of the US as we know it.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Presidents routinely invoke the 25th on themselves so we're covered if an emergency occurs during surgery.

I think for scheduled surgeries, and most commonly for colonoscopies [recommended in the U.S. for persons age 50 and above].

Meaning, not when we need it the most.

From the source I posted at the top of the page—

“ . . the aides ‘felt free to sign his initials on documents, without noting that they were acting for him.’ . . ”

That is an out-of-control situation.