Let me be clear: I think Trump is a traitorous, crooked, authoritarian, ignorant buffoon, bully, and jerk. I think he is unfit for office. I would like him to be removed from office, and I wouldn't weep if he came to the end of his time on earth due to natural causes. So, I want him gone. However, it cannot be done by the use of the 25th Amendment.
This was explained in an article in National Review today. Below is an excerpt:
And yet, even though they’re right about the president’s character and behavior, the chorus of situational constitutionalists calling for Trump’s removal are nonetheless barking up the wrong tree now. They are wrong about the 25th Amendment, and particularly wrong to claim that the situation we are in is exactly what the amendment is for. It most certainly is not intended for such circumstances, and it in fact could not be used in them, whatever you think of Donald Trump.
The article then explains what prompted the 25th Amendment, what it does, and why it is not an effective tool for removing a president from office for any reason other than the president being "unable" to do the job. If the Cabinet invokes the 25th, and the President objects, he can then go to Congress and contest his removal. His removal would still have to be resolved by Congress. Keeping the vice president in power as acting president over the president’s objection would require two-thirds votes in both houses. This is a higher threshold in Congress than impeachment and removal, which require a simple majority in the House and two-thirds only in the Senate.
Also, the President cannot be removed from office by invoking the 25th because he renamed Lake Ontario, or because he rounded up illegal and some legal immigrants, and the occasional American citizen, and sent them to hellhole countries or to torture prisons. He can't be removed by invoking the 25th because he threatened to take Greenland or picked a stupid trade war with Canada. He can't be removed because he is a crook. The 25th cannot be invoked because of a policy dispute or stupid offensive behavior. It can only be used to remove a president if the president is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.'
Below is the full text of the 25th Amendment. Read section IV carefully. I have underlined some important provisions.
25th Amendment
Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2
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.
Section 3
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, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4
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.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
 |
| University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges |
The payout comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held administrators liable under the First Amendment for retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.
Today’s settlement concludes the legal battle that began with a 2022 lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Reges’s behalf. Besides the monetary settlement, the agreement stipulates that the university cannot take any further action against Reges. While Reges’s appeal was pending, UW also rescinded and replaced the vague antiharassment policy used to punish the professor for his speech.
“I am deeply grateful to FIRE for this legal victory which will remind public universities that they are obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of their students, faculty, and staff,” said Reges. “More importantly, I hope that my protest can help reverse a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia and help to convince them that instead of ‘protecting’ students from controversial ideas, they should be helping them to learn how to cope with disagreement. Only then can we heal the deep divisions that confront us today.”
It has become increasingly common in academia to encourage statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land. In December 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and the next month he parodied UW’s model statement in his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor, and a response to the Computer Science department’s recommendation that professors include the UW’s model statement in their syllabi. Reges objected to the political nature of the UW’s model statement and sought to demonstrate that there are competing views on the value of land acknowledgments.
#
Rod's Commentary
by Rod Williams, Sept. 3, 2026- I have followed this case for a while. I think land acknowledgements are silly, performative exercises in virtue signaling, so when I first heard of this professor refusing to play the game, it grabbed my attention.
After Professor Reges parodied the silly land acknowledgement, the University really went after him. University officials directed IT staff to remove the parody statement from Reges’s syllabus without his consent. They created a “shadow” or competing section of his course taught by another professor, allowing students to transfer into it. A lengthy investigation was opened under a vague anti-harassment policy that could be applied to any conduct deemed “unacceptable or inappropriate.” The investigation lasted about a year and found Reges had “likely violated” the policy, though no formal sanction was issued. During the investigation, Reges was denied a merit pay increase. Administrators warned him that repeating the parody in future syllabi could trigger further disciplinary measures. I hope the professor enjoys his $600,000. It should have been more.
There was a time when illiberal liberals shut down conservatives on the public airwaves by requiring "fairness" and equal time. Thankfully, that is gone. We can now be glad that illiberal conservatives do not have those tools of suppression in their toolbox.
To preserve free speech, we must protect it from those who attack it from either the left or the right. We should value free speech as a principle and a right. I fear we are in an age where many are okay with trampling free speech as long as it is their side doing the trampling.
When it comes to the large controversial data center proposed for property near the zoo, I adamantly oppose the government using eminent domain to take the property. I favor property rights and think eminent domain should only be used for things like widening a roadway or building a school, but only when an exhaustive effort to find a willing seller fails. Mayor O’Connell filed eminent domain legislation to acquire the zoo site for public use, including a health center and fire station. This was purely designed to stop the data center. This is a targeted taking attempt, not a legitimate use of eminent domain. The Metro Council has also passed a moratorium on data centers to stop the one near the zoo.
The company building the data center is not gracefully withdrawing from the fight; they are fighting back. They assert that they are already vested in the property and they have received their permits and are in compliance with existing zoning requirements and other requirements in place at the time, and have already spent money to build it. If this goes to court, I suspect Metro will pay DC Blox millions to compensate them for their loss. To stop this approved development will cost Nashville taxpayers a pretty penny.
A petition against the zoo site data center surpassed 360,000 signatures. I am sure that when someone approaches the average person and says, "There is a proposal to build a data center near the zoo, and it will cause anxiety for the elephants. Will you sign our petition to stop it," that many will sign without thinking. I have been a part of petition drives, and people will sign anything. Simply getting a large number of people to sign a petition should not carry the day. Even if a majority oppose it, that does not mean it should be stopped. We, including companies and other entities, have rights, not subject to the opinion of a large number of people or a majority of the people. DC Blox had a right to build the data center, and then that right was taken away.
Fights like the one is Nashville are taking place all over the country. I think that people fear AI and the AI future, as perhaps they should, and opposing data centers is a way to express that fear. I think the opposition to data centers is more of a concern about AI than the actual facility of a data center. Data centers will be built, if not in the US, then in China. Stopping a data center in Nashville is not going to slow AI. However, if data centers are not built in the US, it disadvantages the US and helps China.
President Trump has weighed in on data centers, and for once I tend to think the President is right. I wish he would be more diplomatic in the way he says things, but that is not the Trump way.
President Trump has lashed out at communities that are protesting data centers, suggesting that residents who oppose them must prefer to be “backwards and poor.” “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.”
Representative Tim Burchett of Knoxville has been a Trump cheerleader and also, from time to time, says some cringe-worthy, embarrassing things. He also promotes various conspiracy theories. I do not have a favorable opinion of Tim Burchett. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see Tim Burchett push back against Donald Trump on the data center issue, despite thinking Donald Trump is more right than Burchett, even if I think Donald Trump expresses things crudely. I guess I just like to see two people I don't like disagree.
by Rod Williams, Aug. 31, 2026- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has just won an important free-speech case. Here are the details from FIRE.
A federal court ruled on Friday that the provisions Secretary of State Marco Rubio used in an attempt to deport legal noncitizens for their speech are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.
FIRE challenged the provisions in 2025, which grant the federal government unchecked power to censor under this administration, and others to follow. The ruling affirms a bedrock constitutional principle: The government cannot punish people for protected speech simply because officials dislike their views.
We are thrilled by the result, and by the judge's clear ruling. She noted, "The language of the Amendment makes clear that it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people. Instead, that freedom is imbued in the people, and 'Congress shall make no law' to abridge it."
To be clear, FIRE takes no position on immigration, and this ruling does not say that the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship. It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech.
That's for good reason. Imagine two protesters at a public park — one a citizen and one a legally-present student on a visa. Should one face deportation for holding the exact same sign?
I am pleased to see this ruling and also agree that free speech should be defended on principle, no matter who is in power. The Trump administration has been violating freedom of speech rights and other of our constitutional liberties since the first Trump term but has stepped up its war on free speech since the start of Trump II.At FIRE, we defend free speech on principle — no matter who is in power, whose speech is under attack, or the politics involved. That's what it means to defend the First Amendment, and thanks to your support, it's a fight we can take on and win.
Posts
All Comments
