Todd M. Siebert: WaPo columnist calls for ‘constitutional coup’ to oust Trump

Friday 13 January 2017

WaPo columnist calls for ‘constitutional coup’ to oust Trump

A column published in the Washington Post this week highlights that the political left will probably never accept Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

The Hail Mary attempt to sway Electoral College voters away from Trump failed and efforts to undermine his credibility with shady leaks are being met with skepticism. But the political left is poised to continue coming up with creative ways to attempt to make Trump disappear.

Enter The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, who’s know calling on the incoming vice president and Trump’s Cabinet members to depose the president elect by declaring him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” via the 25^th Amendment.

Cohen, after calling Trump a “one-man basket of deplorables” and “a braggart and a liar,” writes:

One remote remedy is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. It is, as it should be, a laborious process and requires provable acts of treason, bribery or other “high crimes and misdemeanors” — very high bars indeed and difficult to define. In fact, no president has ever gone the whole way: not Andrew Johnson and not Bill Clinton.

There is, however, another way. Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” No doubt the mere mention of incapacitation would summon a horde of lawyers to Washington to contest it or the meaning of every term.

But it is plain that the 25th Amendment does give a role to Cabinet members that is not generally considered when they are up for confirmation. This time, however, they should all be asked whether they are aware of the 25th Amendment and, if need be, whether they would be willing to implement it. Some would say that they do not respond to hypotheticals, but a willingness to abide by the Constitution is not a hypothetical. It is, instead, a grave duty.

Cohen acknowledges that his plan isn’t likely to happen. But he isn’t the first person to bring it up.

Back in November, Keith Olbermann made the case for using what he deemed the “crazy man clause” to deny Trump his term in the Oval Office.