Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Let me know if this sounds familiar.
The Federalist Party lost in a landslide in 1800. They claimed it wasn’t a landslide, because the decision had to be made by the House of Representatives, but the top two candidates were both Jeffersonian Republicans. Though a fantastic revolutionary, John Adams’ presidency had been an abject failure, and his reelection bid fell flat before it even got off the ground. Unfortunately, President John Adams followed the advice of Alexander Hamilton, who believed the federal government’s superiority over the States should be absolute. He called for a centralization of power, usurpation of the Constitution by interpreting its language through implied law, rather than a strict adherence to it as his opponents suggested. Hamilton had already inserted a central banking system into America’s economy, and Adams continued Hamilton’s nationalist vision, favoring centralized fiscal control. Taxes went up, in particular a controversial property tax that led to widespread resentment. Increased federal spending and taxation burdened farmers, small landowners (especially in rural areas), and drove prices upward. Through the Alien and Sedition Acts the Federalist Party bureaucrats were able to suppress dissent, often negatively affecting business confidence and the public trust while heightening political division. The policies provoked backlash from those who felt overtaxed and underrepresented, marring Adams’ presidency with political volatility and public unrest. Meanwhile, wars around the world began to erupt, with the United States caught in a Quasi-War with France over trade routes and strained maritime commerce while both the British and French interfered with American ships complicating exports and imports, especially for merchants. The United States paid highly for international commerce and Adams left it alone to fester with the intent to keep the trade as free as possible. Cities like Boston, Philadelphia and New York were hotbeds of media warfare who published inflammatory rhetoric creating public anger, and both political parties accusing each other of undermining the republic, sometimes leading to street-level confrontations and duels. In regions like the lands inhabited by Pennsylvania Dutch Farmers the political tension heightened with localized unrest, and partisan hostility. They resisted federal officers as they tried to carry out federal law regarding the Direct Tax of 1798, a rebellion that involved armed resistance to federal tax assessors. Adams deployed federal troops, arresting and convicting many angry opponents, but Adams later used his presidential power to pardon to pardon not only those involved in Fries’s Rebellion, but a number of others who many did not believe deserved pardons. Neighbors were called on to report their neighbors for seditious activities, and the courtrooms were used in a partisan manner to go after Adams’ political enemies in the first example of the use of lawfare in the history of the United States. After the Federalist Party’s loss in 1800 to Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party, the party of Hamilton and Adams was leaderless, lost, and unwilling to deviate from the very ideological policies that had led to their defeat. The Federalist Party had not only lost the White House, but also both Houses of Congress, and entrenched themselves in the federal court system from where they would constantly attack Jefferson’s administration. Despite their attacks, Thomas Jefferson began to reduce the debt by eliminating much of the unnecessary and wasteful federal spending that had emerged during the Adams presidency, and revamping tariff policies increasing tariffs charged against other countries, saving the country millions of dollars. He fired half of the bureaucracy – the Federalist Party half. He reorganized the executive branch, worked to reduce the number of Federalist Party judges who had been unlawfully appointed, and Jefferson tried to navigate a neutral course between France and Britain – the geopolitical tides of the Napoleonic Wars made normalization nearly impossible. Jefferson, however, based on his relationship with France, was able to purchase a vast territory for a very low price, using the conflict between France and Britain to his advantage since France was in need of capital and saw their lands in North America as being impossible to defend. The public’s approval of Jefferson increased to the point that the Republicans would enjoy a long course of success, or at least until internal strife during Andrew Jackson’s reign split the party from within, pushing it to become the Democratic-Republican Party, and ultimately the Democratic Party which was intent to reject much of Thomas Jefferson’s originalist beliefs and push for a stronger executive and to push for more democracy claiming that only democracy could save the republic.
The Democrats lost in a landslide in 2024. They claimed it wasn’t a landslide, because the swing states that had sent Donald Trump’s electoral count to 312 over Kamala Harris’s 226 were each won by relatively narrow margins. Nonetheless, the top two candidates, Trump and J.D. Vance, were seen by the public as being vastly popular, and they not only won the Electoral College, but also the popular vote. After a long tenure in the U.S. Senate during which the Democrats claimed made Joseph Biden a fantastic politician, his failed mental capacity threw into the ring in a very undemocratic manner Kamala Harris who as Vice President had been a part of a presidency by Biden that was seen as an abject failure. As a result of his failures, and lack of mental acuity, Biden’s bid for reelection fell flat before it even got off the ground, and Harris’s campaign crashed and burned. As President, unfortunately, Joe Biden followed the advice of the more radical wing of the Democratic Party who believed the federal government’s superiority over the States should be absolute, the Constitution is antiquated and the Electoral College needs to be deep-sixed, and that there should be a centralization of power in the federal government. As a result, the Biden administration consistently usurped the Constitution by interpreting its language through implied law, rather than a strict adherence to it as his opponents suggested. America has already been hampered by a central banking system called the Federal Reserve over the last hundred-plus years, and Biden kicked those Keynesian economic ideas into high gear continuing the progressive nationalist vision, favoring centralized fiscal control. Taxes went up, in particular a controversial Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax which was applied to corporations with over $1 billion in financial statement income and a 1% Excise Tax on Stock Buybacks which penalized publicly traded companies for repurchasing their own shares. Taxes were also increased on crude oil and petroleum products (16.4 cents per barrel), and the Biden Administration put in place a Loss Limitation Extension (Section 461) which restricts the ability of non-corporate taxpayers to deduct business losses. The Democrats in power also proposed, but did not enact higher taxes on wage and investment income, an increased corporate tax rate, capital gains tax hikes, and automatically increase all income tax rates if the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act originally initiated by the first Trump administration was not renewed. The taxes and policies were paired with an increase of federal spending and taxation burden on average Americans driving prices upward. Through DEI and censorship policies the Democratic Party bureaucrats were able to suppress dissent, often negatively affecting business confidence and the public trust while heightening political division. The policies provoked backlash from those who felt overtaxed and underrepresented, marring Biden’s presidency with political volatility and public unrest. Meanwhile, wars around the world began to erupt, with the United States caught in a quasi-manner in a war between Ukraine and Russia. The war in Eastern Europe as well as other conflicts and trade policies by the Biden Administration strained international trade and strained maritime commerce, as well as emboldening China’s grip on the markets complicating exports and imports, especially for American producers and retailers. The United States paid highly for international commerce thanks to unfair tariff policies and the Biden Administration left it alone to fester with the intent to keep the trade as free as possible. Cities which had erupted during President Trump’s first term became hotbeds of media warfare who aired and published inflammatory rhetoric inflaming public anger with both political parties accusing each other of undermining the democracy, sometimes leading to street-level confrontations and violence. In regions like the Central Valley in California, leftist policies drained the regions of their ability to adequately farm, while the cities suffered under relentless progressive-leftist rule creating political tension that heightened with localized unrest, and partisan hostility. After Trump became President in 2025, they resisted federal officers as they tried to carry out federal law regarding immigration. Trump has felt it necessary, in response, to deploy federal troops, arresting and convicting many angry opponents for their unlawful behavior and activities. At the end of Biden’s presidency, rather than apprehend and punish lawbreakers, he used his presidential power to pardon seditious persons and criminals, pardoning not only those involved in the ongoing conspiracies against Donald J. Trump, but a number of others who many did not believe deserved pardons. During Biden’s years of Orwellian WOKEism, neighbors were called on to report their neighbors for seditious activities or anti-DEI (or anti-LGBTQ+) rhetoric or business practices. The courtrooms were used in a partisan manner to go after Biden’s political enemies in the latest example of the use of lawfare in the United States. After the Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 to Donald J. Trump and his Republican Party, the party of Progressive Socialism has become leaderless, lost, and unwilling to deviate from the very ideological policies that had led to their defeat. The Democratic Party had not only lost the White House, but also both Houses of Congress (especially when you consider how many establishment GOP members also lost seats), and so they decided to take advantage of their entrenched positions in the federal court system from where they have constantly attacked Trump’s administration. Despite their attacks, Donald Trump has begun to reduce the debt by eliminating much of the unnecessary and wasteful federal spending that had emerged during the Biden presidency, and using tariff policies to increase tariffs against our international trading partners, saving the country billions of dollars. He fired much of the bureaucracy – all of them progressives. He reorganized the executive branch, is working to reduce the number of Democratic Party aligned judges who have been unlawfully maladministering their office, and he’s trying to navigate a neutral course between Ukraine and Russia as well as between Israel and the Palestinians – the geopolitical tides caused by the hatred that consumes Islam against Israel has made normalization nearly impossible. Trump, however, based on his relationship with Ukraine is attempting to use the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to his advantage by seeking an agreement regarding rare mineral resources in Ukraine. The public’s approval of Trump has increased to the point that the Republicans look like they may enjoy a long course of success, or at least unless internal strife bubbles up and splits the party from within. Ultimately the Democratic Party which rejects much of Donald Trump’s political beliefs and push for a stronger executive and pushes for more democracy claiming that only democracy could save the republic looks like they may be heading for the same kind of collapse as the Federalist Party about two centuries ago with the Federalists getting to the point that they couldn’t win any elections by the 1820s.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
|
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I am one of those who fled California. Like my parents, who fled a few years before me, we couldn’t afford to enter our retirement years in what used to be The Golden State. We aren’t alone.
Gavin Newsom took office in January 2019, and while California was already pushing people and businesses away prior to his reign, since Newsom has taken office the outflow of both residents and businesses increased substantially.
- The total estimated net migration loss during 2020-2025 is 931,000 people (roughly a million people have fled California under Gavin Newsom’s time as Governor of the State).
- Hundreds of companies moved their headquarters out of California between 2020 and 2025, as well.
- The departures have outpaced people and companies moving in during these years, the former resulting in a loss of representation in the House of Representatives after the last census, despite the fact that illegal aliens were being counted for apportionment during that time.
- The primary target states of the fleeing population from California have been Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida – primarily driven by affordability and taxes.
- The numbers reflect a broader trend of economic and demographic shifts larger driven by California’s regulatory environment, tax structure and cost of living.
Bed Bath & Beyond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023 and shuttering all of its brick-and-mortar locations. The company originally opened in 1971 in Springfield, New Jersey. By 1985 the company expanded into California, believing that westward growth into California was in its best interest. By 1999 the company hit $1 billion in sales, reflecting the success of the expansion, including in California. In February 2022, California held the most Bed Bath & Beyond stores of any state, with 87 active locations.
During Gavin Newsom’s governorship the retailer began slashing locations across California, and the company filed for bankruptcy in 2023. While COVID-19, Bed Bath & Beyond’s slow embrace of online retail strategies, and a shift away from the brands that customers trusted were indeed factors regarding BBB’s downfall, the company’s new leadership also cited as they work to open new stores they will be avoiding California due to high taxes, steep wages, heavy regulations, and the overall cost of doing business – the exact reasons companies have been fleeing California in droves during the Newsom governorship.
Governor Gavin Newsom responded with a biting remark implying Bed Bath & Beyond no longer holds relevance.
The Brand is being reintroduced as Bed Bath & Beyond Home, and opened its first new store in Nashville, Tennessee on August 8, 2025. The company plans four more Nashville area stores, with a broader opening strategy for 2026 already underway. The company then plans to convert existing Kirkland Home stores (Kirkland is a new partner with Beyond, Inc.) including six in the Greater Nashville area, followed by up to 75 conversions around the country by 2026 – not including any locations in California.
Rather than try to attract business to California, Newsom would rather snipe at the company, sending a message to other companies that California and their governor are hostile to businesses at a time when Newsom should be acting in a manner that would attract companies into the state.
Gavin Newsom is not only verbally abusive to the business sector, but also against members of the GOP, stating he plans to “punch Republicans in the mouth.”
Then, allegedly in response to Texas reducing Democratic Party gerrymandering in their state which would in turn benefit the Republicans with five additional seats in Congress, put into action increased gerrymandering plans in California to chase out already anemic Republican representation by the State of California in the House of Representatives. Gavin Newsom has already signed the redistricting plan in California that will attempt to further gerrymandering in one of the states that is already gerrymandered to the hilt in favor of the Democrats – sending a stronger message to Republican California residents to flee the state. The new law originally would violate California’s State Constitution which calls for an independent redistricting commission, enshrined in Article XXI of the California Constitution as a result of 2008’s Proposition 11 and 2010’s Proposition 20. Newsom, as a result of the lack of constitutionality of his plan has requested a special election ballot measure to be voted on to temporarily bypass the independent commission, but in polls California voters have shown that they don’t like Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan, with just 36% of respondents backing the idea. The independent commission’s popularity holds support across the board with Independents (72%), Republicans (66%) and Democrats (61%).
Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution also provides for the United States Congress to be able to use legislation to alter any regulations California may spew if they feel it is necessary.
President Trump has in play a plan for a new census that will not count illegal aliens for the purpose of apportionment, a plan that 57% of likely American voters support. In such a scenario, California would lose two seats in the House, partially neutralizing California’s strategy to nullify Texas’s gains. Minnesota, if the move to eliminate illegal alien influence on apportionment is successful, would likely lose a seat, as well. Overall, Democratic-leaning states would also lose about 14 seats to Republicans, Republicans would take about 10 seats from Democrats in Republican-leaning states, and about 4 seats in Battleground states. It is also important to note that both Texas and Florida are expected to gain seats after the next census, but may gain one less seat each than estimated if illegal aliens are no longer counted for apportionment. As a result, the net change in favor of the Republicans would be about twelve seats. Revolver News also suggests the net Democratic Party loss of seats would be about a dozen.
If Trump succeeds in securing legislation to eliminate mail-in voting (this would not affect absentee voting) due to voting fraud associated with mail-in voting, a further shift away from Democrats and in the direction of the Republicans would also likely occur, possibly so much so that the State of Oregon where all voting is performed by mail-in ballots may shift from blue to purple, and possibly even to a Republican majority. Some of the folks in my political circles have suggested the same might be true for California since many of them believe California’s Democratic Party stranglehold is partially due to election integrity issues that includes negative influences due to mail-in voting.
For those who argue to let California fail, it is important to recognize that policies in Gavin Newsom’s California influences other states. A case in point is the recent crash in Florida in which big rig driver Harjinder Singh made an illegal U-Turn and killed three people in the resulting crash. Singh, an illegal alien, obtained a commercial driver’s license in California. In response, the Trump Administration has paused the issuance of all worker visas for commercial truck drivers. Singh’s request for a federal work permit was originally rejected in September 2020 by the Trump Administration, but the decision was reversed in June 2021 under President Biden’s Administration. That federal work permit then allowed Singh to obtain the CDL in California – a state that issues CDLs regardless of immigration status.
The blood of those dead in Florida is not only on Gavin Newsom THE DESTROYER’s hands, but the Democrats in the Biden Administration as well.
And my discussion here about the destructive policies of Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California is only scratching the surface of the political carnage in the once Golden State. The exodus will continue if things don’t change. That said, President Trump is determined to “Save California.”
I won’t hold my breath on that one. California will likely need to completely collapse before it’ll be able to be scraped up from the bottom of the barrel.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As a constitutional originalist, for me context is everything when it comes to our founding documents. One of the terms the federal judges like to use is, “after a plain text reading of the Constitution.” Plain Text Reading?
What if the plain text reading doesn’t match what was originally meant? And if we are searching for original meanings, how do we determine them? Modern interpretation without context?
There are six different categories when it comes to political or judicial opinions regarding the United States Constitution:
- Originalists – Those who believe the Constitution must be followed based on its original intent as intended at the time of the writing of it.
- Textualists – Those who believe the Constitution must be followed based on its plain language regardless of context.
- Broad Interpreters – Those who believe a broad interpretation of the Constitution may be used to define the language of the document because it is a living and breathing document. Typically, their interpretations support their ideology.
- Constitutional Revisionists – Advocates for major reinterpretation or overhaul of constitutional principles because the ideas and principles contain major flaws.
- Post-Constitutionalists & Legal Skeptics: Critics who argue the Constitution is outdated and incompatible with modern governance due to the lack of legitimacy or applicability of the principles in today’s system of governance. Therefore, it should be updated.
- Constitutional Abolitionists – Advocates for replacing or abolishing the Constitution, critiquing its principles as tools of entrenched power structures.
Context is only consulted by the Originalists. All of the others interpret as they please, regardless of context, typically in order to support their own political narratives.
Ever seen those sitcoms that have a scene where someone walks in during a conversation, but since they don’t know the context of what is being said they assume other things which then turn out to be disastrous for someone in the show? It’s funny in a television show, but it is catastrophic when it comes to American Liberty.
Earlier this week my wife and I vacationed in Yosemite, and on the way back while I was searching for a good music station along the coast not far from Sonoma and Napa in California I found one that was rock (which tends to be my preference, though I am typically fine with Country Western, as well) and when I looked at the label on my display, it read:
Rock
95.9
Country
Without context it was confusing. Was it a rock station? Country-Western station? The music I heard was a rock song that was roughly fifty years old, but it had a little bit of a country kick to it. Was it a cross-over hit? Was that what the station typically played?
The bottom line shifted.
Rock
95.9
Radio
Okay, a little more context. Definitely a rock station, though I still didn’t know what the word “country” was doing on the display a moment before.
Then it shifted again.
Rock
95.9
KRSH
Okay, a little more context. Did the display mean to say “KRSH Country Radio”? Perhaps the station considered its region of broadcasting “its” country. That kind of made sense…in a disconnected kind of way. So, from the context I had so far, the station was a rock station, whose call-sign was KRSH, and it considered its region its “country.”
One more shift of the bottom line appeared.
Rock
95.9
Wine
What? What does drinking wine have to do with music?
Then it went back to:
Rock
95.9
Country
Ahh. Now it made sense. Now I had full context. My display on the bottom line was only giving me one word at a time. But now that I had seen all of the words, I realized it read (or would have read if it wasn’t giving me one word at a time):
Rock
95.9
KRSH Wine Country Radio
Considering my location just to the west of Napa Valley (known for its wineries), and having the full context of the display, I understood fully what was being said, and what it meant.
Without full context, the likelihood is that a full understanding of the truth will not be known. With context comes truth,
So, anything other than originalism when it comes to the Constitution is seeking something that is not true. Full context is needed for the truth.
Hence, why originalism seeks full context, and why originalists are the only true constitutionalists.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Communism was the primary evil during the Twentieth Century…well, except during that World War against Fascism of which communism was happy to exploit in certain ways to get everybody’s eyes off of their communist plan. We sent American military forces to two other wars to fight communism, and a Cold War against the Soviet Union that ended in the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Iron Curtain. Communism was the enemy. We knew who the enemy was. And we knew it was dangerous.
Socialism/Communism has failed every time it has been tried.
The Democratic Party had taken a radical turn. Well, that’s not accurate. They’ve always been a bunch of socialists, but now they don’t hide it, and now their narrative out in the open is what we fought against during the last century – and more.
Nobody believed me until the rise of Zohran Mamdani, the self-described Democratic Socialist. President Trump has called him a communist. Some pundits ask that we are also reminded that Mamdani is an anti-Semitic Muslim. Trevor Loudon would remind us that the rise of Zahran Mamdani in New York City is the reality of the Red/Green Axis in America.
The reality is, Mamdani is not just a communist. Minneapolis Democratic Socialist Omar Feteh who’s on the ballot for Minneapolis Mayor is not just a communist. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and every other radical leftist Democrat who’s becoming the voices of the Democratic Party are not just communists.
They are something worse.
They are products of Cultural Marxism. They are products of the Democratic Party’s socialist leanings and anti-American narrative and policies. They are products of the leftism being taught in our schools, preached in Hollywood, and worshipped by the leftwing media. And like a good communist, these anti-American politicians seek to dismantle the U.S. Constitution, strip the country of any semblance of law and order, and put into place Soviet-style central planning. On the surface these communists walk like communists, talk like communists, and embrace communist policies so it is easy to label them as such.
But what they push is something worse than mere communism. Yes, they are communists, but the real danger is that they are purveyors of WOKEism. Their economic ideas are communism on steroids, mixed with stripping law enforcement of any authority, indoctrinating our children with identity-based madness, sexual deviancy that includes chopping up the genitals of children and exposing them to sick drag shows, and promising government giveaways that would even make Joseph Stalin blush.
These radicals focus on “gender-affirming care,” including surgeries for minors, creating special offices for alphabet soup sexual deviancy advocacy, crushing Israel and Christianity while coddling Islam whose leaders and American counterparts not only call for an end to Israel but call for an end to America through a global intifada, plans to make sex-change operations a government-funded and granted right, and make the Orwellian plans of true communists look like amateuristic child’s play.
Communism seeks to destroy America’s liberty and replace it with a system in which the government controls the means of production. Today’s radical Democratic Party WOKEism seeks to replace everything with the religion of their madness – EVERYTHING. WOKEism is radical not only politically and culturally, but more so than anything ever dreamed up in the Kremlin.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The lack of mental acuity of President Joseph Biden during his presidency has been a major talking point for Republicans since they gained power – but few were squawking about it the first time Biden stuttered, shuffled, got confused, and tripped over his own feet. I was. Many pundits were. But you didn’t.
According to Representative Andy Biggs, R-Arizona thanks to the whole autopen scandal that goes hand in hand with the “Biden was confused but they hid it” scandal, and the recent failure of Biden’s aides and staffers to come clean about it during congressional hearings, we need to revamp the 25th Amendment.
The 25th Amendment was ratified February 10, 1967. Among the factors behind the amendment to the United States Constitution was the question, “What if John F. Kennedy had survived taking an assassin’s bullet to the head?” We had already seen in our history the problem of a President unable to perform his duties due to a medical event that rendered his mind to be not much more than a bowl of mush when President Woodrow Wilson suffered a major stroke. While the cover-up was about as intense as the one around Biden’s mush-minded years in office, with some even suggesting that Wilson’s wife was running the country during those final 18 months of his presidency, the other reality was that it created a clear need for a constitutional mechanism for handling a President’s inability to perform his duties.
The 25th Amendment fixed a few things that were not directly addressed in the Constitution prior to its ratification.
No place in the Constitution did the document lay out what happens if the President is suddenly removed from office by death, or any other reason. The tradition was that the Vice President assumed the presidency, a tradition launched thanks to John Tyler, who became President after the death of William Henry Harrison, the first President to die while in office. The argument on what to do was fierce, with many claiming that the Vice President could only be the “acting” President, and that the actual position of President would not be truly filled until after the next election. Tyler rejected that notion, and had a forceful enough personality, and was known for being a serious student and defender of the original intent of the Constitution that he became President of the United States before all of the dust settled. As a result, that became the tradition, despite not being a constitutional reality codified on the pages of the document.
The 25th Amendment resolved the presidential vacancy question in its first sentence which is also the first section of the amendment.
“In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”
Section 2 of the 25th Amendment then resolved what should happen after the Vice Presidency became vacant due to the V.P. taking the office of the President:
“Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”
To burst a few bubbles, that clause means that the Speaker of the House does not automatically become V.P. as some have argued, should that seat become available.
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment tackled the issue of when the President would be able to send a letter to Congress explaining that he will be temporarily incapacitated, and so until he can return to full duty the Vice President will be “Acting President.” We saw this clause play out when Ronald Reagan was shot and needed to go into surgery and recover from his gunshot wound and subsequent surgery.
Section 4 is the part of the 25th Amendment Representative Biggs would like to revamp. The clause explains that if the Vice President and either a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (a.k.a. the President’s Cabinet), or a body created by Congress through law write a letter and send it to the heads of each House of Congress stating the President is not able to carry out his duties (for any reason) then he should be removed from office, and he will be unless the President responds with his own letter saying that the first letter was not true. Then, the group calling for his removal has a choice. Push it, or back off. If they push it, then it goes to Congress and the matter will be resolved by a vote, requiring a two-third majority in each House to vote he should be removed if it is going to happen.
Following congressional conversations with Biden’s staff, which simply has doubled-down on the cover-up by lying about knowing about Biden’s mental insufficiencies, or pleading the 5th (right to not self-incriminate/right to remain silent) Biggs suggests that the way the 25th Amendment is worded it “incentives Cabinet members to protect and hide a debilitated president.” In short, he believes Congress should have more say early on. He added, “I know…we have a separation of powers issue, but I do think that you can finesse that and get that through.”
I get it. The whole lack of mental acuity and the abuse of the autopen is a big deal – a criminal deal, if you ask me. In fact, some might even use the “f” word and the “t” word (Fraud and Treason). Bad people do bad things, and bad politicians are worse.
But, separation of powers is a big deal. The idea behind the 25th Amendment is to keep in mind the Founding Fathers’ fondness for checks and balances. The wheels of government grind slowly on purpose, and removal of the President for any reason is difficult on purpose as per the 25th Amendment. Mutiny should never be easy, so the process was designed to go into effect when the reasons are so serious that even his own people agree with it.
That said, remember that the clause allows for a part of the group calling for the President to be removed to be a group that may be established by Congress by law. So, the clause does call for Congress to be in on it early, if they take the initiative. In either case, be it a group created by Congress, or a majority of the Cabinet members, the Vice President must be in on it as well. That is the check and balance. The situation has to be so serious that even the President’s greatest ally, his V.P., must be in on it.
That said, the President, if he’s with it enough, can still shoot it down.
I get it. What happened during the Biden administration was wrong, and should not have happened. The moment Biden began bumping into walls, needing giant bunnies to get him pointed in the right direction, and falling up stairs the whole thing should have been put in motion – and the Democrats refused to admit it because they saw it as a chance to wield power without the bumbling old man being in the way. But, that doesn’t mean you take a well-written amendment and destroy the whole point of why it is difficult to execute. If it was changed to give Congress more say early on (and I think Biggs wants unilateral power for Congress), every time in the future when the Democrats controlled Congress and the President was a member of the GOP, they’d be putting it into action. Biggs, I understand your concern, but the 25th Amendment is fine. The problem during Biden’s presidency was not that the Constitution didn’t allow anyone to do anything – it was that everybody was too afraid to do anything because during that four years the radical left had everyone afraid to squeak a single peep against them. Biggs, you and the Republicans knew Biden was not able to carry out the duties of his office, but you played the Democrats’ game and kept quiet. The fault does not lie in the Constitution – it lies squarely upon you being a bunch of spineless jellyfish.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary