Liberal Media Speculate On Mental Health And Assassination Protocol
The mainstream media is in an emotional tailspin. They’re doubling down, no longer hiding their contempt. Liberal news outlets are unleashing their writers. Returning to the pre-2008 standards, when leftist “journalists” didn’t sheath their blades from criticism of elected public officials. They’re now flooding news stands with “reports” speculating on President Trump’s assassination, speculating on incestuous relationships, and this article ‘What If Trump Loses His Mind’ by USA Today writer Gabriel Schoenfeld.
Before reading an article like this on a site like USA Today, it is important to acknowledge the fact that these writers and their respective media outlets wouldn’t have dared publish similarly themed article’s three days after Obama’s inauguration. Nope, at that time these “unbiased journalists” were beside themselves with gleeful elation and leg tingles. Gabriel starts out with the fatalism you’d expect from leftist “journalists”
Perhaps President Trump will govern like a genius and manage to fulfill in some measure his campaign pledge to Make America Great Again. Or perhaps our worst fears will be realized and bizarre behavior will become impossible to ignore. If we reach that point, an important question will become: Even if Trump does not commit high crimes or misdemeanors, can he be removed from the presidency?
Poor Gabriel forgets that we have a Constitution, intentionally limiting executive power. It’s that same Constitution that gives “journalists” and real people the right to free speech, the same Constitution that protects our Republic from the tyranny of a majority. But that escapes consideration by Gabriel, he wants to know if Trump can be removed regardless of committing “high crimes or misdemeanors”.
That’s quite a start, let’s keep reading.
In drafting the Constitution, our Founding Fathers spent much more time contemplating how to select a president than how to get rid of one. The Succession Clause in Article II of the Constitution specifies that in the case of a president’s “Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office” his powers devolve to the vice-president. The framers left it to Congress to work out further details.
I jumped the gun, Gabriel does speculate using the Constitution, but only to answer his question “how to get rid of one? (President). Still no mention of the Constitution’s originalist limits on executive authority. Perhaps liberals simply don’t know it’s a thing. After eight years of brown-nosing Obama that’s no surprise.
Only after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, when concerns were raised about the advanced age of those in the line of succession, was the matter clarified through the enactment of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment. It sets up two paths for dealing with an incapacitated president who cannot or chooses not to declare himself unfit. The determination could be made either by the vice president together with “a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments,” or by some “other body as Congress may by law provide.”
Still focusing on what to do with an incapacitated President? I thought this was about mental health, not assassination… Ok Gabriel, we’ll keep reading.
It may seem churlish to bring this up now, but not terribly long ago, we were in a phase of perpetual astonishment at how someone with so many obvious signs of narcissistic personality disorder and impulse control disorder could come so far. Even those favorably disposed toward Trump were expressing fears about his equilibrium. “Our candidate is mental! Do you realize our candidate is mental?” is what Ann Coulter had to say about Trump back in March. “When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane,” wrote Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal in August. In the same paper just last week, The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson, while holding open the possibility of a “successful presidency,” worried that “unfortunately, the candidate who campaigned as a sociopath shows signs he may yet govern as one.”
“Signs of narcissistic personality disorder and impulse control disorder”… this coming from mainstream media writers who’ve shown nothing but “narcissistic personality disorder and impulse control disorder” while covering President Trump the whole election cycle, and transition. The USA Today article itself is a perfect example of media “impulse control disorder”.
Some of those signs — more properly, symptoms — remain manifest. “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” Thanks to tweets like that, doubts about Trump’s mental stability have never gone away. His preoccupation with his “many enemies,” coupled with his claim that the intelligence community has been engaged in a “witch hunt” against him— “something that Nazi Germany would have done and did do” — suggest elevated levels of paranoia particles in his cerebrum.
The verdict on Trump’s mental status, of course, will be out for some time. And it’s conceivable that there is more method than madness here: the tweets and other headline grabbers could be well-calculated diversions in the service of an objective not yet apparent to those Trump watchers who do not comprehend his tactical brilliance. On the other hand, Trump’s flabbergasting stream-of-consciousness address to the CIA on Saturday suggests some degree of detachment from reality.
Perhaps some liberal writers out there really are concerned about President Trump’s mental health. But only so far as it gives them a chance to discus how to remove him from office. Trump’s rhetoric is scary to people who’ve bought whole-heartedly into the liberal media narrative. Encouraging dialogue that shallowly relies on accusations of “racism” and “bigotry” to dodge any substantive debate on political issues. That same shallowness is what motivates reprehensible speculations like Gabriel’s article.
It’s funny how the same people who claim to be about empathy, tolerance, and love, seem all to eager to fantasize about mental health collapses and assassinations.
However close we currently are to a problem, presidential incapacity in a 70-year-old man will never be out of the question. It has certainly been an issue in America’s past, mostly from physical causes.
In 1813 James Madison was laid low by a fever — probably from malaria — that kept him critically ill for three weeks. When James Garfield was shot by an assassin in 1881, he lingered near death for 79 days before succumbing to his wounds. In the worst episode of presidential disability, Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke that was kept entirely hidden from the public for a staggering 519 days.
Dwight Eisenhower had a massive heart attack in 1955, and then a stroke in 1957 that left him briefly unable to speak. Eisenhower acted responsibly and drafted a letter, made public at the time, giving Vice President Richard Nixon the power to decide whether to assume presidential power if he was again incapacitated and could not communicate.
Finally, age, a somewhat valid concern, yet I doubt USA Today would have found it to warrant a whole article had Hillary won.. cough hack cough phlegm. Then to site presidential disabilities and assassinations… for what? For tweets and patriotism? For wanting to defend America’s border or fight radical Islam? USA Today isn’t worried about his health, they’re fantasizing about his demise.
Here’s a hint for liberals. When Conservatives were worried about Obama “losing his mind” and doing things like starting wars, increasing debt, making bad foreign policy decisions etc. We didn’t speculate on assassination protocol, we didn’t speculate on heart attacks or mental illness protocol. No, we did what the Constitution intended, we took control of the House, took control of the Senate, took control of more state governments, and kept his liberal “mental illness” in check. Now that the tables have turned, it would behoove convulsing liberals to get their heads out of the sand (remember that line?), open that Constitution, and take the opportunity to actually learn how to keep in check a President you disagree with. But Gabriel with USA Today won’t do that, no, he continues…
In the post-25th Amendment era, the issue resurfaced most dramatically with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan while Vice President George H.W. Bush was incommunicado on an airplane. That’s when Secretary of State Alexander Haig blurted out his notorious — and notoriously incorrect — pronouncement: “As of now, I am in control here, in the White House.”
But incapacitation by insanity is not something we have much experience with. Perhaps the closest we came is in 1974, as the Watergate scandal was closing in on Nixon, when he began drinking heavily and close aides worried about his mental status. The 25th Amendment was not invoked, yet Defense Secretary James Schlesinger violated the chain of command and ordered the military to intercept all emergency orders, especially any involving nuclear weapons, and convey them to him or to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for clearance.
None of these precedents but the last is pertinent to the situation we would face if President Trump goes off his Oval Office rocker. While it is impossible to forecast how such a dangerous scenario would play out, we do know this: “25th Amendment” will be the two words on everyone’s lips.
Once again, the closest a liberal wants to get to the Constitution is to understand the protocol after a president’s demise. It’s no wonder they are so freaked out about Trump, they’ve spent 8 years at least condemning the Constitution’s limits on executive power as “racist”.
Do you think USA Today would speculate on Hillary’s health 3 days after an inauguration?