GOP set precedent for removing Trump from office — and it will haunt them: analyst

Source: Raw Story · Bias: Far Left

Summary

Legal experts and constitutional scholars are examining the 25th Amendment as a potential mechanism to address what they view as unprecedented threats to national security from President Donald Trump.Experts believe Trump's unilateral decision to wage war against Iran without congressional authorization is enough reason for the 25th Amendment to be used. The constitutional debate centers on whether Trump's nuclear threats and undeclared war qualify as grounds for invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows the cabinet to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."Jamie Raskin, speaking to Slate, said, "Think of it from the perspective of the Framers. Like if Thomas Jefferson or James Madison were here, how would they respond to the whole situation? So you’ve got a war that was never declared by Congress, not authorized by Congress at all. "A unilateral war where the president is then threatening nuclear devastation, which is obviously outside of the contemplation of the Framers. Someone threatening to destroy an entire civilization and to kill millions of people. "All of which is to say that the Constitution wasn’t really set up for this, and the reason everybody has gravitated so quickly to the 25th Amendment is because it was adopted in 1967, in the nuclear age, and it’s the closest thing to capturing constitutional mechanics to address a profound crisis that shook people to the core."So we can try to distance ourselves from what happened by saying it was either a mad genius act or it was just an act of political desperation to save face, so that he could later concoct a rationalization that he had forced a great settlement. "But, in any event, the rhetorical outburst in itself was a profound assault on people’s sense of peace and security, and that’s why everybody is struggling to figure out what, within the constitutional context, we can do."Raskin went on to suggest the Republican Party had set a precedent for the introduction of the 25th Amendment. He said, "My Republican colleagues on the Oversight Committee were adamant about writing to the presidential physician under Joe Biden. They wanted him to come and testify about Biden’s condition. "So they have already established that they think it’s all right for Congress to be involved in trying to assess the fitness and medical condition of the president."Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson described Trump's threats as "deep into 25th Amendment territory". However, invoking the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and a majority of cabinet members to declare Trump unfit—a politically unlikely scenario despite mounting constitutional concerns about nuclear threats made without congressional authorization.

Related Coverage

Daily Analysis

Read the full Parallax Pulse for April 15, 2026 — an AI-powered analysis of how Left and Right media covered the biggest stories this day.

More Headlines From April 15, 2026

arallaxNews.io
GOP set precedent for removing Trump from office — and it will haunt them: analyst
Raw Story

GOP set precedent for removing Trump from office — and it will haunt them: analyst

Far Left

Legal experts and constitutional scholars are examining the 25th Amendment as a potential mechanism to address what they view as unprecedented threats to national security from President Donald Trump.Experts believe Trump's unilateral decision to wage war against Iran without congressional authorization is enough reason for the 25th Amendment to be used. The constitutional debate centers on whether Trump's nuclear threats and undeclared war qualify as grounds for invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows the cabinet to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."Jamie Raskin, speaking to Slate, said, "Think of it from the perspective of the Framers. Like if Thomas Jefferson or James Madison were here, how would they respond to the whole situation? So you’ve got a war that was never declared by Congress, not authorized by Congress at all. "A unilateral war where the president is then threatening nuclear devastation, which is obviously outside of the contemplation of the Framers. Someone threatening to destroy an entire civilization and to kill millions of people. "All of which is to say that the Constitution wasn’t really set up for this, and the reason everybody has gravitated so quickly to the 25th Amendment is because it was adopted in 1967, in the nuclear age, and it’s the closest thing to capturing constitutional mechanics to address a profound crisis that shook people to the core."So we can try to distance ourselves from what happened by saying it was either a mad genius act or it was just an act of political desperation to save face, so that he could later concoct a rationalization that he had forced a great settlement. "But, in any event, the rhetorical outburst in itself was a profound assault on people’s sense of peace and security, and that’s why everybody is struggling to figure out what, within the constitutional context, we can do."Raskin went on to suggest the Republican Party had set a precedent for the introduction of the 25th Amendment. He said, "My Republican colleagues on the Oversight Committee were adamant about writing to the presidential physician under Joe Biden. They wanted him to come and testify about Biden’s condition. "So they have already established that they think it’s all right for Congress to be involved in trying to assess the fitness and medical condition of the president."Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson described Trump's threats as "deep into 25th Amendment territory". However, invoking the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and a majority of cabinet members to declare Trump unfit—a politically unlikely scenario despite mounting constitutional concerns about nuclear threats made without congressional authorization.

Read Full Story at Source