Seriously, I don't see why a President couldn't do every last bit of his job out of quarantine. What parts do you think would require flesh on flesh contact?
 

Interesting issue. But one should note, or, may argue in fact, that it is up to the president, to exercise such discretion and decide the extension of his own capacity or competence. Why ? Because the clause dictates, I quote the most relevant part:

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary...

So, It is his written declaration. Made by him. Initiated by him. Signed by him. That is, one may argue, a proprio motu discretion. On the other hand, the next clause, dictates:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

End of quotation:

So, here, it is not up to him it seems. So, the Q is back to the issue. But, that is why there are courts.They need to prevail is such issues bearing ambiguity.

Thanks
 

Putting aside for the moment the fact the POTUS could conduct all business without face to face contact, why precisely could't he hold face to face meetings with the proper precautions, like his wearing a mask?

People are treating COVID 19 like the black death with 99% communicability. This is LUNACY. Currently, 0.0000037% of the population is infected and only 2.9% of that vanishingly small fraction of the population have died, nearly all of whom are over 70 and roughly half of whom were in a single WA nursing home.

The POTUS should actually get on television, give the people the facts and tell everyone apart from the elderly and those with compromised immune systems to go about their daily lives taking basic precautions. He should warn the elderly and those with compromised immune systems truly at risk to take enhanced precautions. Of course, the Democrats and their media would savage Trump for acting sane to gain political advantage, so the POTUS plays along with this unreasoned panic, which is unemploying thousands and trashing people's retirement savings.
 

The entry agrees that most jobs can be done in quarantine but noted:

"In a crisis, though, having a President who cannot meet people face-to-face poses a problem."

You can "meet" people by Skype or something, but public officials do also physically engage with people and this at times is an important thing. In quarantine, this cannot be done in certain respects. So, part of "his job" cannot be done.

But, that sounds rather limited in scope and not really something that requires the 25A unless one gets ill enough that the other stuff couldn't be done either. If someone has a broken leg, e.g., they might not be able to travel to meet with a foreign leader in a key moment. But, I don't think the 25A should be invoked.
 

Given that a guest at a WH reception has already tested positive for COVID 19, the virus is already probably in the WH. But Trump will not self-quarantine -- that would be for the protection of others, and he's not interested in that.

And he's obviously not going to get on television and admit that he was hopelessly wrong, that his administration screwed up the preparation by failing to get the test kits going in time, and that they downplayed the seriousness of the virus through wishful thinking.

I suspect that by the end of next week the public is not going to care whether Trump self-quarantines, or that he's doing presidential duties. This is, for example, the first time in recent memory when, on a Thursday morning there wasn't a single traffic slowdown. Stores are empty.

But don't get too worried: it's only the elderly (like your mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc -- and me ) that have a significant probability of getting very sick and dying -- and of course tying up the hospitals and leaving them unable to handle other emergencies in the interim. What's to worry about?


 

"So, here, it is not up to him it seems. So, the Q is back to the issue. But, that is why there are courts.They need to prevail is such issues bearing ambiguity."

No place for the courts in this at all. The President himself can invoke the 25th amendment, or his cabinet can. But if his cabinet does, he can cancel it.

If they insist anyway, it goes to Congress, where a 2/3 vote of both chambers is required for the President to be removed... Actually, a higher hurdle than for impeachment! (Which only requires a super majority in the Senate.)

Which is why the Democrats' talk about invoking the 25th amendment against Trump was so hilarious. Not only does it require his own hand picked cabinet to want him removed, it then requires more votes in Congress than impeachment. It's way harder to do than impeachment, (Which they failed at.) unless there's something so obviously wrong with the President that even his own allies agree he's got to be removed.
 

"And he's obviously not going to get on television and admit that he was hopelessly wrong, that his administration screwed up the preparation by failing to get the test kits going in time, and that they downplayed the seriousness of the virus through wishful thinking."

Outside of a "the buck stops here" sense, it wasn't his administration that screwed up the test kits. It was Obama hold-overs. The Senate under McConnell hasn't had much interest in acting on Trump nominees for anything but the judiciary, so most of the bureaucracy is still controlled by people put in place by the prior administration.
 

Speaking of which:

" Bolsonaro aide tests positive for coronavirus days after Trump meeting"

Here:

https://www.axios.com/brazil-bolsonaro-coronavirus-trump-meeting-mar-a-lago-bed77ec8-f768-4d8d-a6b0-ae463361e558.html
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH:

COVID 19 is a very small part of a constellation of colds and flus the health system treats and from which a small percentage of the elderly and immune system compromised die every year.

There is absolutely no reason to panic and "close everything" in response.
 

Brett, this is only prima facie so. That is what you conclude from the reading of the clauses. Yet, you can't yet predict or understand, in what cases the president, should act so, or, in what cases executive branch officials may or should act on the other hand. We can't understand it from the language of the article. It is vague. And that is why there are courts. For much more than that,they have intervened. Because:

One must define, what is incompetent person. Suppose, there are cases, where one person, feels fit, and, can insist on it, yet, in objective terms, he is not.

Those are complicated issues. It is not so smooth always, to read and conclude from the reading, at once. No case, no details, no parameters, described there in the constitution.

I shall illustrate later maybe....

Thanks
 

"We can't understand it from the language of the article. It is vague."

I don't see anything the least bit vague there. There are judgment calls the relevant people, none of whom are in the judiciary, must make. But being assigned a judgment call by the Constitution isn't the same as the Constitution being "vague".

I don't see any role in there for the courts at all. It's actually one of the more detailed procedural clauses of the Constitution.
 

"What parts do you think would require flesh on flesh contact?"

One of, if not the, main jobs of the President is to serve as the visible representative of the nation at all manner of ceremonies, rituals and such. That's part of the point of having a President instead of a monarch and/or Prime Minister.

Also, iirc, Trump has himself talked about how in dealmaking sometimes you need to be physically present.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"The elderly"

What? Like 73 year olds with unhealthy habits?
 

"People are treating COVID 19 like the black death with 99% communicability. This is LUNACY. "

Well, Bircher Bart would know from lunacy ;).

Of course, if, say, a foreign terrorist or undocumented alien or group killed three dozen plus Americans Bircher Bart would be frothing at the mouth demanding a full scale effort such as an invasion, border wall or what not. It's just that this catastrophe is, quite likely rightly, seen as politically bad for the current GOP administration that Bircher Bart would like to see it soft peddled.

Partisan incoherent is as partisan incoherent does.

This is not a serious man.
 

"It was Obama hold-overs."

Trump is in power. He has numerous people there. Own up to it. It's his responsibility. This focus on someone not in office for going on eight years is a mixture of silly and pathetic.

There are lots of people confirmed, including Cabinet heads. There are temporary appointees. And, if Trump actually wanted to, he could do more to pressure the Senate, including withholding judges to make McConnell care more. At any rate, he's in charge. The buck stops with him and his people.

Trump also actively did other things that made it harder to deal with this situation but others can deal with that if they care to do so. If this occurred in the first few months of another Administration, before there was time for confirmations etc., talking about "Trump holdovers" or whatever in this situation would be well worthy of ridicule too.

ETA: Yes, I saw the "buck stops here" but it was a handwave instead of a full stop.
 

"Which is why the Democrats' talk about invoking the 25th amendment against Trump was so hilarious."

People don't actually think it will happen given the rules; they cite it as something that in a reasonable universe would at least be something open to serious discussion. See also, how impeachment led to a not guilty vote in part given Republican senators failing their oaths by refusing to traditional (which only matters when it matters) usage of testimony and subpoenaed documentary materials. Investigations and impeachment in this current environment has limited results but talking about what should happen is valid.

The specifics of the 25A, including the procedures used, would to me be a political question that the courts would basically avoid handling.
 

"It was Obama hold-overs. "

Lol, it's a three plus year Deep State sabotage conspiracy!

Birchers are more predictable than sunrises...
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Own up to it."

Oh, Bircher's can't/won't do that. This is what Goldstein/Deep State/fill in the blank is for, a critical part of every conspiracy theory: "a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State" whom the partisan can point to to explain away any failing of the Party one serves.

Remember these are the group of people that got an investigation into the other party's nominee *led by a career GOP operative* and then complained non-stop that the investigation was biased *against them.* Likewise when there was an investigation into their party leader they *also got a lifelong GOP operative to head it* and then complained about bias again! There are no set of facts they won't turn into part of their conspiracy theory/victimhood narrative. It's how conspiracy theory works.

That this move is so knee-jerk for a party which also calls itself the party of 'personal responsibility' is just the cherry on top of the hypocrisy sundae.
 

I see my typo.

It must just feel that long. Going on four is long enough for that to be muy lame.
 

"Actually, a higher hurdle than for impeachment! (Which only requires a super majority in the Senate.)"

Conviction in the Senate also requires a 2/3 vote: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
 

"Lol, it's a three plus year Deep State sabotage conspiracy!"

Seriously, that's hard to dispute at this point, especially since we know know that the Mueller team knew the Russian collusion narrative was a steaming heap within weeks, but kept going month after month.

Trump and McConnell are not friends, they aren't even allies. They're just enemies with a common enemy.
 

"Conviction in the Senate also requires a 2/3 vote: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.""

That's what I said: Impeachment only requires 2/3 in the Senate. Amendment 25 requires 2/3 of BOTH chambers.
 

It's rather comical, really, that Bart thinks he knows how communicable and how deadly COVID 19 is. Because, so far as the medical professionals are saying, they don't precisely, know.

And he even knows how communicable the plagues of the dark and middle ages were. Amazing.

And of course, how communicable and deadly the virus is doesn't matter: fear of it is 100% communicable, and 100% going to affect the retail economy, the entertainment industry, the restaurant industry, and others, not just the stock market.
 

Brett, read again. It doesn't specify cases. Do you understand what is a case ? Specifying details. What is incompetent person, that needs to quit and not to function and make critical decisions.

There are cases as written, that a person feels fit. But, medical opinion, would claim that it is subjective perception, that doesn't reflect the objective mental or physical state of the person at issue.

Suppose then, that Trump, argues that he feels well and fit. But, medical opinion would conclude differently. Then what ? He would refuse to write such letter or declaration, while medical opinion, states otherwise.

That's what happens in real life. So, we may face controversy, between:

The perception of Trump. Medical opinion of some sort. and, suppose, the perception of officials in the executive branch.

Then, someone will have to prevail. Last time I have checked, this is the duty of the court, if petitioned , to prevail in controversy, as illustrated above.

What you read, is procedural indeed, but it lacks substantial judgment, on merits let's say. Briefly, who in incompetent to serve, and why, based on what medical parameters or others. In this regard, it is vague simply .

There is procedure indeed, but there is more importantly : substance. The latter , are missing of course ( partly, due to the fact, that it is the constitution, lacking details of course naturally ).

Thanks
 

"One of, if not the, main jobs of the President is to serve as the visible representative of the nation at all manner of ceremonies, rituals and such. That's part of the point of having a President instead of a monarch and/or Prime Minister."

Yes, the American system combines the roles of a monarch and PM so there is a ceremonial role here and histories of the early years of the U.S. include evidence of how official dinners and so forth was an important thing. There was also in some cases a lot more direct content with the people, down to them trying to get jobs.

Trump surely sees this an important part of his job including holding rallies. As to how essential all of this is, well that is a harder question. A POTUS can not be feeling well and avoid that sort of thing without the 25A kicking in.

To go back to main question, it is unclear just what would entail something worthy of the 25A kicking in. The seminal case would be something akin the Wilson or temporary cases like when a POTUS undergoes surgery. Which has happened.

But, if they had surgery, e.g., and basically had to have bed rest for a week, I don't think the 25A would be necessary. It's possible a POTUS might do it. And, maybe in certain cases it would be a good idea. A federal judge, e.g., can hand over a major trial that can involve life and death issues if they feel unwell. And, that is limited in scope and the decisions of the trial judge open to appeal.

The test for the v.p. and the Cabinet and/or the special body the amendment leaves open would practicably be much more harder to meet.
 

So, according to Brett, Trump is not personally incompetent (which is at variance with his entire history of bankruptcies, business failures, marriages, and so forth) -- but merely incompetent at figuring out how to appoint capable people, people who can actually ride herd on all those dastardly never-trumpers that riddle the federal agencies...

Apropos of which, may I point out that a lot of us predicted that, in the case of a crisis, Trump would fail and fail miserably. As we said as soon as he was pronounced the winner of the election, it was only a matter of time.

 

Brett, just to illustrate it:

The state of Wisconsin, in its " Guardianships and conservatorships " law ( chapter 54) defines " Incapacity" as follows:

(15) “Incapacity” means the inability of an individual effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate a decision with respect to the exercise of a right or power.

End of quotation:

Yet, one may argue, that with reasonable assistance, such incapacity can be overcome. Well, we have then, hell of issue. One president, would allege, that even if he is in such condition of incapacity as defined medically so, he is yet, capable to " accomplish the dish " by getting assistance, and continuing to fully function.

So, what the constitution or founders, has to say on it ? That's life. Not wording, but life. That is why there are courts.

Here:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/54.pdf

Thanks
 

BD: People are treating COVID 19 like the black death with 99% communicability. This is LUNACY.

Mr. W: Of course, if, say, a foreign terrorist or undocumented alien or group killed three dozen plus Americans Bircher Bart would be frothing at the mouth demanding a full scale effort such as an invasion, border wall or what not.

Once again, analogy is not your strong suit.

I was among those who said we should all continue to live our lives as we please after a terrorist attack which killed a hundred times more Americans than COVID 19.

Of course, I also supported laying waste to those warring on Americans, just as I support testing and treatment to kill off this disease.
 

C2H5OH: It's rather comical, really, that Bart thinks he knows how communicable and how deadly COVID 19 is. Because, so far as the medical professionals are saying, they don't precisely, know. And he even knows how communicable the plagues of the dark and middle ages were. Amazing.

Read some history. The rapid spread and high mortality rate of the Black Death plague is well reported:

Analysis of wills registered in the medieval City of London has shown that 60 percent of Londoners were wiped out by the Black Death from the autumn of 1348 to spring of 1349. A comparable rate of destruction would today kill some 5 million people.

COVID 19 is not the same galaxy.

 

Bart demonstrates his predilection for selective perception. The exact vectors and method by which the plague spread is still argued among professionals. Was it entirely because of the fleas (which at the time were everywhere) or was it because the plague had gone "pneumonic"? We don't now for sure.

We know that, today, the bubonic plague is spread by fleas and is not communicated readily person-to-person.

Since the cities of the period were basically hellholes of sanitation, that is a meaningless comparison. Remember, Newton (as was the case of other people of privilege) was sent out to the country to avoid the ravages of the plague. Doing that today is not feasible (we note that South Dakota has, proportionately, far more cases than the neighboring state of Minnesota and its urban population.) COVID-19 is pneumonic.

But it's true that fear is not 100% communicable -- idiots and arrogant fools will not be affected (except in their IRA's and other investments. Although they may have an awakening if they in turn infect some elderly they care about...)

 

"So, according to Brett, Trump is not personally incompetent (which is at variance with his entire history of bankruptcies, business failures, marriages, and so forth) -- but merely incompetent at figuring out how to appoint capable people, people who can actually ride herd on all those dastardly never-trumpers that riddle the federal agencies..."

Not just failing to appoint. He also disbanded the emergency response team Obama had assembled and even now his budget calls for *cuts* to the CDC.
 

By the way:

" Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public from 4:30 p.m. on March 12, 2020, until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business, and case filing deadlines are not extended under Rule 30.1. "

Here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov
 

"Seriously, that's hard to dispute at this point, especially since we know know that the Mueller team knew the Russian collusion narrative was a steaming heap within weeks, but kept going month after month."

It is comments like this why I had to actually invent a term, a concept, which describes our Birchers. Partisan incoherent. What they say makes such little sense considered as responses in a normal conversation, but when thought of as someone straining to defend a partisan position to the point of incoherence, it makes perfect sense. Witness this exemplary comment by Bircher Brett.

First, there's the obligatory 'everyone knows' comment about a highly contestable (to say the least) thing. No evidence offered, but it's a critical leg of the response. The partisan incoherent wants us to accept a critical and highly contestable (to say the least) premise and move on to the more propagandist claims they wish to make. It's typical Bircher conspiracy theory partisan incoherent. What do we 'know know' (sic) about the Mueller investigation? Well, one could say we 'know know' that it found that about a half a dozen high Trump campaign/administration officials were literal foreign agents, taking their money and/or lying about this. They're sitting in jail now and/or awaiting sentencing. If a *scintilla* of the same were true about a Democrat President our Birchers would be howling for massive action to be taken.

Second, even if arguendo we were to accept what Bircher Brett foolishly offers as undisputed, notice how what he assumes from it just doesn't follow. That's classic Bircher Brett (and Bart for that matter). Bircher Brett is trying, via innuendo and terrible grasp of logic, to make the insinuation (like most conspiracy nuts what they say doesn't rise to the level of an 'argument') that Mueller, a lifelong GOP operative, was somehow leading an effort *biased against the GOP official he was charged with investigating.* Again, please note, that if a Democrat were appointed to investigate another Democrat our Birchers would be howling to the moon with anger. But with conspiracy theorists *every set of facts can be interpreted to fit the conspiracy.* And Bircher Brett is true to form as one could predict.

So Brett's 'evidence' for his insinuation is that Mueller "knew the Russian collusion narrative was a steaming heap within weeks, but kept going month after month." Since he mentioned 'steaming heap(s)' I should mention how, well, 'crappy' his logic is here. He concludes that the only possible reason a named independent counsel would keep 'going month after month' in their investigation is to conduct a political hit on the President (please note that Bircher Brett said he loved political hits re: Trump's abuse of power to investigate Biden for political reasons, disingenuousness? more like partisan incoherent).

But of course that's terrible logic. Many other possible, plausible, and even more likely options exist. For example: prosecutor independent counsels, regardless of the political party of their target or themselves, have a tendency to follow every thread, even if ultimately fruitless in terms of recommended prosecutions (and lets remember Mueller's yielded many indictments and convictions!) in their investigation. Also, given *Trump and his allies* trumpeted the results of the investigation as exonerating, it could be said that Mueller's thoroughness was a boon to Trump!

The thing is, Birchers like Brett haven't given this or much anything else much serious thought. It's illogical insinuation based on partisan leanings, that's really the best you're going to get out of him.

Partisan incoherent.
 

"It's rather comical, really, that Bart thinks he knows how communicable and how deadly COVID 19 is."

Birchers like Bart's biggest problem is this: they think they know everything because everything, they think, is easily known, and so they don't work hard to know anything, but comment confidently on everything, and that shows.

It's why Bircher Bart has a recorded track record of lol predictions, arguments, gaffes, etc., here. And, he being what he is, a not serious man in any way, he doesn't learn or have any introspection.

Don't retreat, reload is his life mantra. It's said that 'a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts while losing sight of his goal.' That's not quite right in regard to Bircher Bart. He's always got his mind on his partisan goal. It's literally the only the principle this unserious man has.
 

"Of course, I also supported laying waste to those warring on Americans, just as I support testing and treatment to kill off this disease."

Bircher Bart on 'support(ing) laing waste to those warring on Americans': 'let's engage in a trillion dollar invasion and occupation! and pass measures for rendition, torture and intrusive surveillance!'

Bircher Bart on the threat of coronavirus: "There is absolutely no reason to panic..."

This is not a serious man. This is a propagandist, *at best.*
 

A reminder to people.

Bircher Bart is on record here saying that he would support Trump *even if he clearly murdered someone.* So, take that into account when he defends Trump against charges that his maladministration has led to suffering and possible death via this crisis. A man who would support a proven murderer is a moral hole who would say all kinds of thing to defend them in this situation.

Bircher Brett is on record saying that if Trump used his executive powers to target a domestic political enemy then that was a *good thing* because it would hopefully lead to both sides investigating each other until they 'burnt it all down' (note: Bircher Brett was being, as usual, completely disingenuous, as he gnashes his teeth and tears his sackcloth whenever Trump is investigated). This is not a man who cares about morality.

Let's also remember how much these two are Kooky Krazy Konspiracy theorists by nature. Recently, they kooked up a krazy konspiracy theory that the prosecutions of Michael Cohen and Lev Parnas were objectionable political hits on President Trump. Let's note that Bircher Brett *endorsed* political hits when he defended Trump doing it to the Bidens, but, partisan incoherents are gonna partisan incoherent, and so he literally contradicted himself by complaining about this alleged political hit. But, more importantly, their theory was, as usual, laughably Krazy Kooky Konspiracy: the prosecutor in charge there was a 1. Trump appointee; 2. worked on the Trump transition team and 3. donated thousands to Trump.

This is what they do. They kook up krazy konspiracy theories. These are not serious men, morally or intellecutally. They are here to fling poo, hoping some of it sticks.
 

Oh, I forgot, Bircher Bart is *on record here* saying Trump never asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate the Bidens. He did this long after the WH released their 'quasi-transcript' which demonstrably shows this to be true.

A man who can't get even this right is an expert on infectious diseases?

This is not a serious man.
 

Mr. W:

Someone is upset over being corrected yet again.
 

Someone is upset over their demonstrable foolishness being detailed.
 

Mr. W:

CNN has determined that hoarding toilet paper and posting on Balkinization are the leading ways of getting COVID 19.

Tell everyone you know.
 

Bircher Bart cannot disavow his frequent foolish statements here because they are on record.

But, he has his current propaganda mission.
 

"if a Democrat were appointed to investigate another Democrat our Birchers would be howling to the moon with anger."

Or even if a Democrat had a conversation with someone at an airport.

"He concludes that the only possible reason a named independent counsel would keep 'going month after month' in their investigation is to conduct a political hit on the President"

He concludes that because he knows that's what Ken Starr did and assumes that everyone else is just as lacking in integrity as Starr.
 

The POTUS should actually get on television, give the people the facts and tell everyone apart from the elderly and those with compromised immune systems to go about their daily lives taking basic precautions. He should warn the elderly and those with compromised immune systems truly at risk to take enhanced precautions. Of course, the Democrats and their media would savage Trump for acting sane to gain political advantage, so the POTUS plays along with this unreasoned panic, which is unemploying thousands and trashing people's retirement savings.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:14 PM

After what happened last night do you really want that halfwit speaking in public again?
 

"Wilson could not temporarily hand off power to his Vice-President, Thomas Marshall."

Before the 25A, we had this provision:

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

The text does not provide a direct means for the President to temporarily hand off power but it does say that in case of inability to discharge the power and duties that the power would devolve on the Vice President. The lack of clarity caused difficulties such as during President Garfield's lingering death. The vagueness of "disability" was flagged during the Convention but as with other things was left to the future.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_6s1.html

The last part of the clause suggests a temporary disability was possible. The clause doesn't provide a mechanism for the President to hand over power in such a case, such as when they would be undergoing surgery or whatever, but the bare text suggests it would be done anyway. The Necessary and Proper Clause might be a suitable place to look for an official mechanism to determine disability including an official statement of the POTUS which would logically be deemed suitable in most cases.

Long story short, the mechanism was never formally set-up, but Wilson very well could have stated he was unable and Thomas Marshall could have taken over. And, if it was ever determined his disability was no longer in place, the power would go back to Wilson. The clause can be interpreted to make the devolving of power temporary, only in place as long as the disability.

The 25A partially clarified the matter though difficulties probably can still be imagined.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

In the real world, 99.9999963% of Americans remain COVID 19 free.

Meanwhile, Democrats are channeling Monty Python.

"I'm getting better."

"No your not, you'll be stone dead in a moment."
 

Since the Trump administration has not provided adequate testing to determine the true prevalence of COVID-19, to declare a percentage is simply wishful thinking.

 

Blankshot, those wacky Democrats in South Korea are testing 20,000 people a day. Trump’s CDC has tested about 11,000 total. That’s the real world.
 

Wishful thinking, among other moral and intellectual derangements, is a speciality of Birchers like Bart. Remember, this is the guy who guaranteed a Romney presidency, insisted Iraq had WMDs long after W, Powell, and the gang had given up, argued there was 'zero evidence' that Trump ever asked for an investigation into the Bidens *after the WH had released its quasi-transcript, etc.

Partisan incoherent.

It is amusing to see his obvious panic, not about the corona virus itself but about the political hit his favorite fascist leader is taking from it.
 

I'm not a scientist nor staid at Holiday Inn Express, so as with the climate science discussion will avoid opining on the specifics of the coronavirus. I think Corona beer is decent enough though.

Back to the 25A. When we think "Framers," we often think about the original set & this was flagged to a degree by the author of this post a few years back when talking about value of collecting and studying the records behind Reconstruction Amendments. This original framers focus is unfortunate especially given the originalism fetish out there in the first place. The importance is underlined when Justice Alito in McDonald v. Chicago described the changing understandings of gun rights from 1791 to 1868.

We have a set of amendments for which many people were alive to see ratified. Justice Stevens (RIP) in a case involving marijuana related speech discussed his memory of Prohibition. The 25A is more recent. I really should read "One Heartbeat Away: Presidential Disability and Succession" by Birch Bayh discussing that matter from the vantage point of a key framer of that amendment. But, as with other constitutional matters, we must apply the text today with the understandings of experience.

[Bayh took part in a commission that supplied a helpful short report in the 1980s: http://web1.millercenter.org/commissions/comm_1988.pdf]

The 25A here since its ratification might not have underwent much development even as compared to the reach of the text of the ERA which in its "pending" form is not much younger. But, debates over just what disability means very well might be something there. And, what of that congressional body left open by the amendment?

I checked btw and George Bush used the voluntary transfer provision more than once when he had a minor medical procedure, in one case to practice due care for basically a full day. I don't recall this period of an acting President Cheney, but we did ok.

On the issue of judicial review, this longer article does touch on that:

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/clinic/document/mn082208_ls_readerguide_interior_final.pdf

It is fairly likely that a serious 25A claim could have been raised toward the end of the Reagan presidency. The concerns about Trump is more controversial but when we are dealing with older individuals particularly, such as perhaps a chief executive whose 80th Birthday falls within his first term, the 25A is a serious matter. This includes the congressional body that should be seriously considered given the self-protective nature of the Cabinet in that area. For instance, full medical data can be required to be provided to such a body.


 

C2H5OH said...Since the Trump administration has not provided adequate testing to determine the true prevalence of COVID-19, to declare a percentage is simply wishful thinking.

Congress needs to appropriate money for testing, then manufacturers have to make the kits.

Let's say testing reveals COVID 19 has infected one hundred times the people known today, then 99.99963% of Americans will remain COVID 19 free.

Are you getting a clue, yet?
 

Clues might be provided to the intelligent, if they listen to the experts on how these airborne viruses spread. For example, a few experts have said (you can go look for the article on any newspaper of record) that the virus will eventually infect roughtly 96,000,000 Americans, and little can be done, now, to prevent that.

The only thing they hope is that the measures being taken by the public (note that: by the public, not by the government, which has failed utterly to contain the spread) will slow the spread over time so that it will not, as has been the case in Italy, swamp the hospitals.

We can hope the experts are wrong, but betting against the experts is something I'll leave for a fool like yourself and the people you place above scientific expertise.

 

It seems lots of people don't understand exponential functions.
 

Currently, 0.0000037% of the population is infected and only 2.9% of that vanishingly small fraction of the population have died, nearly all of whom are over 70 and roughly half of whom were in a single WA nursing home.

.0000037% of 330 million is 12.
 

Math is hard.
 

C2H5OH: few experts have said (you can go look for the article on any newspaper of record) that the virus will eventually infect roughtly 96,000,000 Americans, and little can be done, now, to prevent that.

This "best guess" without evidence came from a single presenter at an American Hospital Association sponsored conference, one Dr. James Lawler of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and was recklessly repeated by the Democrat media as the official position of the AHA. U of Nebraska immediately walked back the estimate as soon as it was made.

I will wager $1,000 here and now that 96m Americans will not be infected with COVID 19.

If you are unwilling to take the wager, admit that you are repeating bulls_t you did not bother to fact check.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

bymatov:

0.0000037 of 331 million is 1200.
 

0.0000037 of 331 million is 1200.

So it is.


And 0.0000037 is one hundred times 0.0000037%
 

It was Obama hold-overs.

And here I thought is was an inevitable consequence of the New Deal.
 

bymatov:

I see what your are getting at. I stand corrected and admit my a mistake adding a percent sign.

OMG! A full 0.00037% of the population is infected.

Bring out your dead!
 

Ignorance is bliss, and innumeracy multiplies the bliss many times over.
 

C2H5OH:

Wager is still on the table. Take advantage of my blissful ignorance.
 

Bart,

Given the fact that there will not be enough test kits to give them to 96 million people, it would be impossible for me to prove I won. And given your past refusal to admit reality (the infamous "transcript" comes to mind), and your evident unwillingness to accept learned estimates by experts, I decline to take part in what is obviously a stupid wager with you.

What -- are you going to put more than your reputation on the line? ("Chuckle..." as you are wont to say.)


 

C2H5OH: Given the fact that there will not be enough test kits to give them to 96 million people, it would be impossible for me to prove I won.

Are you calling Nancy Pelosi a liar? She was on TV this afternoon saying the House was taking enough money from us to have everyone tested.

In any case, I never expected you to take the wager because the "expert" claim which no one else supports was facial nonsense.

I made the wager to demonstrate you will not admit you repeated facial nonsense.


 

"Ignorance is bliss, and innumeracy multiplies the bliss many times over."

It doesn't just multiply it, it's exponential.
 

Enough with the math.

The Trump event this afternoon appears to be following the "buck stops over there" motiff.
 

Bart thinks he can declare himself "winning" if only (!) 95,999,999 people come down with COVID-19 -- which would mean there would be, roughly, a million deaths due to it.

Explain just what the "proof" would be, and give a better deal -- you apparently believe only a few percent of the population will come down with the virus, so you should be willing to bet there will "only" be a few hundred thousand (estimated) cases.

Then, we'll see. But I'll warn you: I don't need to take your money to prove that you are not the wisest person around...you see, I understand that making bets like you did is simply a form of bullying.

 

She was on TV this afternoon saying the House was taking enough money from us to have everyone tested.

Doesn't mean Trump won't spend it on trips to Mar-a-Lago.

Astonishing that he, like Brett, wants to blame Obama, and 40+% of the country will believe it.
 

C2H5OH said...you apparently believe only a few percent of the population will come down with the virus, so you should be willing to bet there will "only" be a few hundred thousand (estimated) cases.

Like your "expert," I have no idea how many people will come down with COVID 19, but I know with $1,000 worth of near certainty that it will be nowhere near the "expert" figure you are peddling without any evidence or question.

Your "expert" claimed the 96 million over the next 3-4 months, doubling every week.

As a point of comparison, the swine flu sickened 100 million Americans over the past decade.

I understand that making bets like you did is simply a form of bullying.

Putting your money where you post is constitutes bullying? I must admit, I have never heard that one before.
 

The only honest thing you have said today is that you "have no idea".

If you believe that the expert (not my expert, BTW) is wildly wrong, a bet based on your commitments would be that the actual number will be less than a quarter, say, of that figure over the next four months. Note you have still avoided providing a method for establishing the number, which I take as proof that your "wager" was nothing but sophistry. Please note that I won't accept the CDC under Trump, based on its recent behavior.

By they way, your dishonesty about what Nancy Pelosi said is duly noted. She said that the test will be available to everyone who desires it. That will be a tiny fraction of the population. And of course, she didn't say when...

And now, consider the original issue: if the WH will undergo testing, it is virtually certain that the virus will be found*. Will the WH be quarantined? Will the population even be told the truth? (Recall that Trump's operation wanted to classify the discussions of the virus.)

*All such tests come with a certain percentage of "false positives". If the WH staff is tested, the number of tests that are given will almost certainly produce at least one such.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Blankshot still thinks we found WMD in Iraq. So a bet with him based on facts is an unwinable exercise.