Today in Supreme Court History: December 28, 1856

12/28/1856: President Woodrow Wilson's birthday. His administration would initiate the prosecutions under the Sedition Act that gave rise to Schenck v. U.S., Debs v. U.S., and Abrams v. U.S.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wilson would also segregate the Federal government.

[Malika the Maiz]

First elected Southern President since the Civil War.

[Purple Martin]

You and Josh touch on an important topic. A common slippery slope argument is stated as Once we start judging important historical figures by the standards of the present, without acknowledging the context of the times they lived in, where do we stop?

I don't know which side of the argument you would take (probably one in defense of the Confederacy) but it is possible to address that rationally. Start with consideration of the difference between, say, the racist Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, and actual enslavers of Black human beings, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Wilson's presidential achievements were significant but far less impactful than the lasting damage he caused. His restoration and institutionalization of government segregation significantly damaged civil rights, and the damage lasted for generations.

Wilson’s purposeful reversal (for a time) of the slow but nevertheless persistent progress of racial integration in American life, makes his name unsuited for memorialization, including at the University over which he presided for a time. That's why Princeton stripped his name from the former Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and renamed Wilson College, to First College (per its history as one of Princeton's first residential colleges).

That differs from realistically acknowledging Washington's and Jefferson's factual fundamental importance in America's founding—far greater than Wilson's—while also committing to more complete analysis and understanding of their irredeemable roles in facilitating and perpetuating America's original sin.

That’s what I use to weigh difficult cases: did a person, on balance, substantially advance or did they purposefully obstruct vitally necessary progress? In the end, on balance, did they build up, or did they tear down fundamental American values and principles? I believe Washington and Jefferson pass that test, while Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson (a closer case) do not. But the debate is important.

Decisions on Confederate generals are easy. Their monuments, whether statues or military bases, are based solely on their treason against the United States, and success in blocking Reconstruction and delaying racial progress. They will come down, and their stories used only as lessons-learned in human fallibility.

But decisions on others who undeniably both contributed to and obstructed progress, are closer and deserve thoughtful consideration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are being inconsistent.
IF you want to judge people by their times, then you have to judge the Confederate Generals in their times, when ones loyalty was to ones STATE and not the nation. That's a fact, as is why people like Lee joined the Confederacy -- because Virginia had.

Conversely, Wilson CREATED a segregated Federal government -- it had NOT been segregated before that. There'd been free Blacks since the Revolution, and while they had segregated housing and churches, they otherwise were not segregated. Massachusetts let them vote to ratify the Constitution -- not sure about other states.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even in the 1860s, there were plenty of people who had no trouble seeing both how evil slavery was, and how monstrous it would be to betray your country in defense of such a thing. Applying the standards of the time doesn’t help the traitors case, and it’s certainly no excuse for you.

[David Nieporent]

IF you want to judge people by their times, then you have to judge the Confederate Generals in their times, when ones loyalty was to ones STATE and not the nation. That's a fact, as is why people like Lee joined the Confederacy -- because Virginia had.

The problem is that this is Lost Causist revisionist bullshit (note the actual spelling of that last word!). Plenty of military officers upheld their oaths — which were to the nation — and stayed loyal and honest. Lee was just a dishonorable traitor, not a product of his time.

[Purple Martin]

Yes Mister Ed, I'm quite familiar with pseudo-academicLost Cause apologia and their century-long struggle deny that defending the White Man's Right to enslave, buy and sell Black human beings was the single but-for cause of the Civil War.

That is, But For slavery, all the other issues Lost Cause apologists parrot (some real, some grossly exaggerated) would have eventually reached resolution through the normal political process. Many people would have been left unsatisfied, but it would not have reached the point of Southern insurrection, rebellion, and civil war.

I've mentioned before that you might find it worthwhile to expand your information sources to a few things outside of your chosen echosphere.

For an example concerning your particular "why people like Lee joined the Confederacy," did you know Robert E. Lee was the only one of the eight U.S. Army Colonels from Virginia at the time, to betray his oath and commit treason against his country?

From a review of:
Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause.
—Brigadier General Ty Seidule, former head of the West Point's history department [and deep-roots Southerner once highly invested in the stories of the Honorable South.]

The key to Seidule’s rejection of the Lost Cause was his realization, while teaching military history at West Point, that the Confederate leadership committed treason “to protect and expand chattel slavery.” As a scholar, Seidule could no longer make excuses for the violent and degrading slave culture of the South. Describing an antebellum plantation, he imagined “coffle, rape, torture” and came to believe that plantations should be called “enslaved labor farms” instead.

He also points out that there were eight colonels from Virginia in the U.S. Army on the eve of the war. Seven remained loyal to their oath, while only one, Lee, betrayed his country. The common belief that Lee did what every other Southern officer did isn’t true.
“We must remember,” Seidule reminds us, “Lee fought for perpetual slavery.”

Faithful to the Virginia? He was faithful to the Virginia fortune of Mary Custis, who inherited three Virginia plantations from her father, George Washington Parke Custis (George Washington's nephew, and father, btw, of his wife's enslaved half-sister. Search on: "Maria Carter Custis, daughter of George Washington Parke Custis and an enslaved maid"). That included Arlington and its more than 100 enslaved Black human beings, which and who became Lee’s only when he moved onto it after they married.

History will not forget Robert E. Lee. His life will remain a topic of intense study and much writing, an object-lesson in human fallibility leading to a more accurate and better substantiated understanding of that period of American life.

He will remain justifiably famous as one of the two most notable traitors in American history, an enthusiastic enslaver of Black human beings, a leading CSA war leader, and the single greatest inspiration of the Lost Cause movement that delayed American racial progress for a century.

[ReaderY]

Wilson did more than that. He had a showing of The Birth of A Nation at the White House and publicly promoted it. He did a great deal to revive the Ku Klux Klan, which had been on the decline but greatly increased in no small part as a result of his efforts. And he didn’t just segregate the federal government. He barred black people from all but the most menial jobs. Black diplomats were offered jobs as janitors.

While segregation was on the rise before Wilson, his enthusiastic endorsement of Ku Klux Klan values did a great deal to normalize it and set it in stone.

[Commenter_XY]

Edith Wilson was a shadow president, much like Jill Biden.

[Malika the Maiz]

Nope.

[Mr. Bumble]

Edith Wilson or Dr, Jill or both?

[Malika the Maiz]

Wilson didn’t even appear in public for like a year, he was bedridden generally. Whatever one thinks of Biden he’s not near that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We hear of Biden zoning out from time to time, but it's never affected performance of his duties.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, he's been as sharp as a tack.
Funny Wine Box Nancy wanted to take the nuclear codes out of Trump's hands but has said nothing about Biden whom you just claimed has zoned out from time to time. Is there a contingency for "zoning out"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably because his subordinates were the ones actually performing those duties, not him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's reporting that says it affected it quite a bit.

[Malika the Maiz]

Paywalled.

[Mr. Bumble]

Everything's gonna be pay-walled by and by (H/T Shel Siverstein).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back then, you could be President from bed -- people brought you things and you either signed them or not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

On a serious note, if any of y'all have a relative that lives alone and appears the way Biden does in public, check on them. Make sure they're consistently able to take their medication, get groceries, feed themselves, feed their pets, that their houses are getting clean and laundry done, etc.

[Malika the Maiz]

Ridiculous.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Why do you hate elders?

[Malika the Maiz]

I hate dolts, such as yourself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullbleep. VISIT them, and show them some respect.

You'll learn the same thing while permitting them to retain their dignity. And perish the thought you might help them with their spring cleaning or getting the house ready for winter.

[ducksalad]

XY, I've got a question for you.

I agree that Biden had significant, and worsening, cognitive difficulties throughout his term. The question is: from your point of view, so what?

Was there any major policy decision - something important to you - that you think he would have made differently if less disabled? Or is something you think President Harris would have done better?

As I see it, the decisions that came out of the White House were just about what we'd all expect from a center left Democrat administration. Bad where Democrats are bad, meh where Democrats are meh, virtues mainly virtues of omission.

As far as the constitutional duties are concerned, perhaps with some nudging from his handlers, he signed or rejected stuff, he stood up and gave a state of the union address (Article II doesn't require that it be a good one), and nominated people to offices.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sounds like the Reagan White House, esp. during his second term.

[Commenter_XY]

Gr8 question, ducksalad.

Iran policy...I think a fully cognizant Biden does not engage Tehran to the extent an enfeebled Biden did. And maybe not at all.

I also think a fully cognizant Biden might have let SVB go under, and not bail them out.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Those are merely your policy preferences. Almost every major power — and Obama — did a great deal of engagement with Tehran.

And if Biden was enfeebled or not, he is handing off to Trump an Iran which is not doing very well.

[ducksalad]

Thanks. Maybe he got buffaloed into the SVB bailout, he did seem to waffle and his dementia might have made it easier to push him.

I don't see that he did much engagement with Iran. I dob't remember much except that he allowed a few US allies to release funds they owed to Iran without punishing those allies. Would FC Biden have done different? If anything I thought he might try harder to revive The Deal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

After Biden almost got us in a war, the GOP made a deal with the dems -- no more press conferences and we won't mention he hasn't had any.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's significant they covered up his problems.

[ducksalad]

Not much of a cover up IMO. More in the category of same polite lie we use for every other elderly person right up to that day we take away the car keys.

And for much the same reason, Pulling the 25th, like taking the keys, is a discrete act, while loss of cognition is a gradual thing that starts (very slowly) after you peak around age 18 or so.

It's not that no one is paying attention. It's just that it doesn't benefit anyone to announce everyday that Grandpa is partially impaired and it's getting worse but just not quite enough to take the keys.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, the people who expressed concern about Biden having he car keys - or the nuclear button - were derided as right-wing propagandist liars.

We have a 25th Amendment to address these situations and they deliberately took that option off the table.

[ducksalad]

The 25th doesn't call for a popular vote and it was never going to be your call, so no option was taken away from you, and you weren't denied your rights. It was Harris's call to start the process and she chose not to exercise it.

And if she'd dangled it and talked it up and promoted it without being able to immediately get half the cabinet and 2/3 of Congress on board, it would have been (correctly) seen as her undermining and creating a crisis. The right wing complaining now would have been the loudest in saying she was selfishly trying to overturn democracy. That;s on the relative polite Volokh side. On the regular Reason comment threads they'd have been screaming coup and treason.

And finally, you, Margrave, know perfectly well that Republicans would've prevented that 2/3 because (a) they'd have nothing to gain from President Harris, and (b) their base would be doing the coup narrative.

It was never really on the table.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Of course Harris played the Thomas Marshall role and abdicated her responsibility to take over from a disabled President. How on earth did I deny this?

Of course, Marshall had the excuse that there was no detailed constitutional procedure in place for him to challenge President Wilson. Now there's a process to challenge the President Wilsons (like Biden).

And what are you babbling about regarding my rights? The public (of which I'm a humble member) has a right to the enforcement of the 25th Amendment.

And if the Republicans chose to join the cover-up and let Biden stay in office despite his cognitive issues, that would underline my oft-repeated point that the Republicans as nearly bad as the Democrats.

[ducksalad]

Well maybe I was babbling a bit, but saying:

"The public ... has a right to the enforcement of the 25th Amendment."

is about like saying the public has the right to have laws vetoed. The public only has the right to elect the person who decides whether or not to issue a veto.

If the 25th wording had been something like "if the president becomes disabled, the vice president shall...", you'd have more of a point. But it isn't worded that way; it doesn't say the VP shall do anything. Wisely in my opinion, because disability isn't the type of fact over which there would be no disagreement. Instead it words it terms of who has authority to declare a disability.

[David Nieporent]

aq

And what are you babbling about regarding my rights? The public (of which I'm a humble member) has a right to the enforcement of the 25th Amendment.

As a legal claim, this is obviously wrong, but it also makes no sense. The 25th amendment allows a president who cannot fulfill his duties to be circumvented; it doesn't create an obligation for anyone to do so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you're going to talk in such an autistic way, then technically the public has no right to have crime punished. Because the laws only say *if* you're convicted of such-and-such a crime, *then* you'll get such and such a penalty.

Or to use your phrasing, the criminal code allows the punishment off offenders; it doesn't create an obligation for anyone to seek such punishment.

Which would be clearly stupid.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

What exactly does "support" mean, do you think?

Before the 25th amendment, the governing provision was in Art. II(6): "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" [emphasis added]

What does "shall" mean, do you think?

After the 25th Amendment, did the duty to deal with Presidential disability suddenly become *less* than the duty to deal with a President's death, resignation or removal?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And yes, I should have said Art. II(1), not Art. II(6)

[David Nieporent]

Or to use your phrasing, the criminal code allows the punishment off offenders; it doesn't create an obligation for anyone to seek such punishment.

Which would be clearly stupid.

Which would actually be entirely correct. Have you ever heard of prosecutorial discretion? The remedy for the executive declining to arrest/prosecute offenders is political, not legal.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Now perhaps you can enlighten me on an important question: What is the difference between prosecutorial discretion (good) and jury nullification (bad)?

I happen to think both prosecutors and juries should enforce the law (as properly interpreted). But I'd like to hear the perspective of those who think that one group, and not the other, is exempt from the responsibility of enforcing the law.

[David Nieporent]

No, the people who expressed concern about Biden having he car keys - or the nuclear button - were derided as right-wing propagandist liars.

That's because those people had been doing so for years, including ones where it was obviously a lie, like in 2020. Remember, they were so humiliated by how badly Biden trounced Trump in the debates in 2020 that they invented an imaginary drug that makes people with dementia lucid, that Biden must have taken to beat Trump.

Boy who cried wolf and all that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As I said, if Republicans joined the cover up they'd be acting like Democrats, and they'd get no sympathy from me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Trump Administration (Version 1.0) put forth a memorandum ordering the Department of Commerce not to count undocumented immigrants for purposes of congressional apportionment.

Various parties, including the state of New York, sued. SCOTUS on 12/18/20 dropped a per curiam (Trump v. N.Y.) begging off jurisdiction on ripeness and standing grounds.

The liberals, via Breyer, dissented. Recall there were three at this point. Two more cases were vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on 12/28/20. Trump v. San Jose and Trump v. Useche. The earlier case with the same dissents were referenced.

President Biden later issued an executive order requiring undocumented immigrants to be included in the count pursuant to constitutional requirement.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...pursuant to constitutional requirement."
What Constitutional requirement?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

[F.D. Wolf]

The living constitutionalists become hyper-textualists when it suits them.

Should a soldier stationed in Germany be counted in the Census? Apparently not by your reading, as he is not "in" a State.

This was the issue in Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). For the 1990 Census, the Secretary of Commerce had decided to apportion military and other U.S. personnel stationed overseas to the state of their usual residence. This resulted in Massachusetts losing one representative and Washington gaining one. The Court rejected Massachusetts' constitutional challenge to the Secretary's action.

"Usual residence" was the gloss given the constitutional phrase "in each State" by the first enumeration Act and has been used by the Census Bureau ever since to allocate persons to their home States. The term can mean more than mere physical presence, and has been used broadly enough to include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place. The first enumeration Act itself provided that "every person occasionally absent at the time of the enumeration [shall be counted] as belonging to that place in which he usually resides in the United States." The Act placed no limit on the duration of the absence, which, considering the modes of transportation available at the time, may have been quite lengthy.

Id. at 804 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Apparently? Perhaps, you should not presume.

[F.D. Wolf]

You claimed the counting of illegal immigrants in the Census was a "constitutional requirement". You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, but given legal precedent and long historical practice, I strongly suspect the Court would not agree with you.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "apparently" presumption does not necessarily follow from my comments. Nor does the "hypertextual" potshot.

I simply said that counting undocumented people is required in this context and cited the text upon request.

I didn't go into a detailed discussion of why. Justice Breyer's dissent offers some details, citing Franklin.

[David Nieporent]

The living constitutionalists become hyper-textualists when it suits them.

Should a soldier stationed in Germany be counted in the Census? Apparently not by your reading, as he is not "in" a State.

As Scalia said, "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be — though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.”

Reading "in" to mean, "Present in the state at the precise moment the census taker walks by" would be a ridiculous example of strict constitution. But reading it to exclude people who actually do live there would be utterly non-textualist.

[not guilty]

The Fourteenth Amendment, § 2 states:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

"[T]he whole number of persons in each State" includes immigrants, documented or otherwise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Spin it however you want but persons in the country illegally should not be counted for purposes of representation.

[Malika the Maiz]

They’re not “persons?”

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, they aren't. And that's why they should be shot.

[Malika the Maiz]

More likely you’re not a person (at least a sane one), nutter.

[SRG2]

It may well be the case that if you were setting up a Constitution from scratch, they should not be. But if you go with the Constitution you have, not the one you want, they must be counted. And we can be certain of this because it would have been simple for the FFs to say, "whole number of citizens" not "persons" and they did not do so.

Argue all you like about what the law should be. But given what the law is, illegals are to be counted.

[Sarcastr0]

Quoting Constitutional text isn't spin.

You just don't care if anyone takes you seriously, eh?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Do you think anyone takes you seriously?

Seriously, do you?

[not guilty]

"Spin it however you want but persons in the country illegally should not be counted for purposes of representation."

Despite the express language of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 2?

Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land."
Subject of course to what the Supreme Court says it is.

[David Nieporent]

Spin it however you want but persons in the country illegally should not be counted for purposes of representation.

Then amend the constitution.

[ducksalad]

Rough result:

California: Lose 3 D electoral votes and House seats.
Texas: Lose 2 R electoral votes and House seats.
Florida: Lose 1 R electoral vote and House seat.
New York: Lose 1 D electoral vote and House seat.

But....those seats will get redistributed to other states, and it's not as clear where they'd land. The Congressmen about to lose their seats will push back hard, including the Republicans.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California, 444 U.S. 1307 (decided December 28, 1979): Rehnquist denies stay of order allowing California Attorney General to intervene in affairs of charitable organization suspected of corruption; Synanon claimed it was a church but First Amendment provides no special protection (I was glad to see Synanon get their comeuppance; their “attack therapy” was much praised when I was first working in that field and it seemed to me monstrous)

[SRG2]

About Syanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed.

Attack therapy was used elsewhere, Phoenix House, Odyssey House, etc. Fortunately it fell out of favor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yet one more reason why the only good social worker is a dead social worker....

[not guilty]

"Yet one more reason why the only good social worker is a dead social worker...."

I have asked before, and you have declined to answer. What bad experiences, if any. have you had with social workers? What is the wellspring of your hatred?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have seen too many of them abusing their clients.

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, attack therapy has been taken up by Progressive DEI cultists. 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

The “white fragility” folks haven’t gone that far. Though sometimes they come close.

[Commenter_XY]

Legal question for intl minded lawyers.

Suppose a POTUS Trump decides to personally sanction every staff member of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), and their family members in response to the ICC issuing a warrant for PM Netanyahu and MK Gallant.

What legal impediments are there to a POTUS Trump issuing an executive order of the following sanctions to be applied to all ICC OTP staff (approx 400 people):

- Prohibit entry or overflight to the US, or any US territory
- Prohibit use of US banking system, or US banks and subsidiaries
- Prohibit any business that ICC OTP staff members (and their family members) may own, or partly own from doing business, or contracting with the US government, or any federal agency
- Prohibit investment in US securities, through financial institutions

What would be the legal argument that a POTUS Trump cannot order those sanctions via executive order?

[John F. Carr]

Trump has the power to do some of this. An executive order on its own is not sufficient. An executive branch official to whom authority has been delegated by statute or regulation has to follow the prescribed procedure. For example, some sanctions are ordered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department.

I think Trump can't sanction U.S. persons by fiat, only foreigners. Outside of the sanctions types you listed, Hamas can be designated as a foreign terrorist organization but a U.S. campus SJP chapter can not. Not even if SJP members commit crimes that are considered terrorism under federal law. The law the Secretary of State would use in making a terrorist designation only allows designation of foreign groups.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The first question would be what treaty rights did we sign off on with the Thugs of Turtle Bay (UN)? That would be a big question.

A related question -- Richard Nixon chose to recognize Communist China and not Taiwan as the Chinese Government. Can Trump reverse that?

[John F. Carr]

Trump could recognize the government in Taiwan as the sole legitimate government of all of China. He could throw in Crimea, Gaza, and Western Sahara if he likes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the authority to grant recognition to foreign governments is exclusively vested in the president.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Going back to the 25th Amendment issue, let me offer a constructive suggestion for future reference.

"Whenever 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* [emphasis added] transmit...their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office..." [the Vice President takes over, subject to the President's right to appeal to Congress.]/25th Amendment, Section 4

If it's a question of the President being captured by the enemy or some such, the Cabinet would be the proper body to join with the Vice President in certifying the President's inability to discharge his powers and duties.

But if it's a question of sickness, disability, dementia - basically a medical issue of the President's qualifications - Congress should take the power of ascertaining disability away from the Cabinet and vest it in a panel of physicians. This panel should be able to initiate medical investigations of the President, as well as holding regular checkups if it deems this suitable. (if the President refuses to cooperate with the physicians' panel, this itself should be considered a potential admission of disability).

Once the physicians' panel becomes convinced the President is medically disabled, it should send this conclusion to the Vice President, and if the Vice President agrees, the 25th Amendment should be triggered.

Congress should provide fixed terms for the panel members, and provide that they can only be terminated for cause,, via impeachment (they's answerable to Congress anyway). If the President tries to remove panel members on his own authority, that should in and of itself be a basis for impeachment.

The Vice President (unless ghoulishly ambitious) would naturally be shy about initiating a process to remove his President, so the VP should be limited to reviewing the physician panel's conclusion *after* receiving it, and a medical determination of disability has already been made. That wouldn't stop the VP, like anyone else, from furnishing evidence to the panel at any time about Presidential deterioration.

Advantages of my plan: Compared to the Cabinet, a panel of patriotic, expert doctors would be more likely to note deterioration by the President and to alert the public to what it finds. The doctors wouldn't be dictators since they would be checked by the Vice President and Congress.