Notices by WesDym (wesdym@mastodon.social)

Womp womp, bitch.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pro-trump-journalist-deported-immigration-crackdowns-1792165

3/

A3: The Senate holds a trial on the charges, with House members acting as prosecutors.

The Senate must vote at least 2/3 (currently 67+) to convict.

What happens after that is up to the Senate. It's expected that the president will be removed from office. If so, the VP immediately becomes President.

The sitting President retains their full authority up to that moment.

The Senate may order further consequences -- pretty much anything they decide.

/4

2/

A2: The House debates the charges. Despite the Constitution saying "high crimes and misdemeanours", no criminal indictment or conviction is necessary. In the language of the time, this was already understood as a general reference to corruption or misconduct in office.

In practice, literally ANYTHING is impeachable, if a majority of the House agrees that it is.

At the end of debate, the House votes. A simple majority validates the indictment.

/3

Since this is being talked about a lot right now, for obvious reasons, let's go over what the law actually provides for the removal of a sitting president.

Option A: Impeachment

Step A0: Not required, but the House may start an investigation. (This is what happened to Nixon.)

A1: A Resolution is introduced formally calling for impeachment. This is usually referred to the Judiciary Committee to debate, who may approve it, upon which the full House votes on it.

/2

5/

§4 allows the VP "and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide" to temporarily pass authority to the VP.

That phrase means the Cabinet, as defined by 45 USC § 101, currently 15 persons. Under 25A §4, the VP and at least EIGHT Cabinet secretaries (confirmed or Acting) must all agree.

While authority moves to the VP, the President retains their office pending the outcome.

/6

4/

Option B: 25th Amendment

Ratified in 1967, 25A is mostly about succession, but Sections 3 and 4 are about presidential incapacity.

The President uses § to temporarily hand authority to the VP while unable to fulfill his duties, such as when undergoing surgery. Authority reverts upon his declaration of sufficiency.

Current talk is about §4, used to unseat a President who is unable to fulfill their duties, but can't or won't invoke §3.

/5

Addendum.

What impeachment would currently require: It's certain that all 214 Democrats in the House would vote to indict. 4 more members, including at least 3 GOP, would also have to agree.

In the Senate, all 45 Democrats would certainly convict. Conviction would then require at least 22 more Senators to agree, including at least 20 GOP.

For 25A, at least 76 non-Dems would have to agree, including at least 75 GOP. In the Senate, at least 21 non-Dems must agree.

7/

If unseated through 25A, the President retains their office, while the VP assumes their duties and powers. 25A affords no further action by Congress.

Power reverts at any time, if petitioners so indicate. The next federal election (every even-numbered year) resets all conditions upon the new Congress being seated.

#

6/

The President may object, in which case the VP and at least half the Cabinet are afforded 4 days to respond. If they do not, then power automatically reverts to the President.

If they do, by a 2nd declaration that the President is unfit, then Congress must start debate on it w/in 48 hours, and decide w/in 21 days.

Congress affirms by 2/3+ in BOTH houses. (Note that this is a higher bar than impeachment.) Otherwise, the matter is dissolved (until restarted).

/7

Meanwhile, in one of the most politically backwards parts of the US, a public debate is brewing about whether it's appropriate or not for a sitting school board member to tell a student, "God you're hot, you know that? Damn. Where do you go to school at?" -- while touching her. It was in public, and on camera, and some of his colleagues laughed, so you can understand how it's complicated.

https://www.wsmv.com/2026/04/06/god-youre-hot-tennessee-school-board-member-says-student-during-board-meeting/

@timnitGebru I'm no mathologist, but this seems like a stretch. Is the argument that mathematics used or developed by crappy people is itself suspect for that reason? Is the math not able to be valid on its own, if it was developed or associated with crappy people?

Wagner was antisemitic. But he died 143 years go, and he can't spend your money attacking Jews, no matter how much of his music you buy.

J.K. Rowling is alive and healthy, is known to have contributed to anti-trans actions, and vows to keep doing it. She gets money from anything and everything that has anything to do with Harry Potter. Any time you pay for anything that's associated in any way with Harry Potter, you contribute to anti-trans activism. Until she dies, or changes her mind.

@fesshole I've been accused of being AI online many times. I've even had people try to actively prompt me. As near as I can tell, it's because I write like a fucking educated grown-up most of the time, which I guess is rare enough that people believe humans don't do that. It's depressing.

@georgetakei Eh, there was a time when I might have, Melly, but I'm too old to sit in prison now. But I get that you need help. Blink twice in public often enough, and maybe someone (younger) will help you. Also, learn that behind-the-back hand thing. You never know if that might work, too. Good luck!

And please don't look at me directly. I don't believe in souls, but just in case I have one, I'd like to keep it a bit longer.

@zazzoo They're ALL obsessed with height. DeSatan wears risers, too, and GOP candidates have been spotted standing on boxes behind lecterns to conceal their true height.

This entire party is a bunch of extremely insecure teenagers. It's pathetic.

To my own amazement, Tennessee continues to get even worse.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/tennessee-bill-would-allow-foster-kids-to-be-locked-up-in-juvenile-detention-without-criminal-charges

Apparently, the Star Wars vs Star Trek battle debate is still going on in some corners. I don't understand this. The Empire might be much larger than the Federation, but the latter's technology is far more advanced. Any capital ship from any major power in the ST universe would easily take out an entire Imperial fleet, without getting a scratch. How are there people debating this at all?

2/ In December 2000, the outcome of that year's US presidential election was still uncertain, and major newspapers were printing updated electoral maps daily. No standard political colour scheme existed for that purpose at that point.

At the New York Times, senior graphics editor Archie Tse declared that red would designate GOP states, for the arbitrary reason that both 'red' and 'Republican' start with 'R'. It really was that simple.

Tse had clearly never studied history.

/3

Non-Americans are likely baffled by now-common US terminology describing conservatism as 'red' and liberalism or progressivism as 'blue'. This is OPPOSITE to how most of the rest of the world associates politics with these colours.

The reason is as stupid as it is random, and can be blamed on a specific known person in a specic place and time.

/cont-2

@vicfroh Also, STOP BUYING OUR SHIT. There is NOTHING made in or sold by the US that you either really NEED, or for which there's not a suitable non-US replacement. (A very few, very specific things excepted, for now. Mostly a few medicines and medical gadgets.)

Trade is what keeps our fascist regime going. SHUT IT DOWN. Deprive us of your money. That loss can't be covered up, and WILL get through to the wealthy and powerful apologists defending this horrible shitshow. We'll all survive this.