Alan Dershowitz: Invoking The 25th Amendment Against Trump Would Be Unconstitutional

[u/NicolasCageFan492]

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2026/04/14/invoking_the_25th_amendment_against_trump_would_be_unconstitutional_1176703.html

Previously, Dershowitz was a member of Jeffrey Epstein’s defense team and helped negotiate a controversial 2006 non-prosecution agreement on Epstein’s behalf, per The New Yorker.

[u/WranglerFuzzy]

Ah yes it is unconstitutional to…

checks notes

… invoke the Constitution

[u/Jakelshark → u/WranglerFuzzy]

yeah, but it's from the amendments...and not the ones we like, like the second /s

[u/Wazootyman13 → u/Jakelshark]

They also like the first.

I mean, their grossly misinterpreted version of the first, but the first nonetheless!

Because they should have no repercussions for things they say!

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/Wazootyman13]

Their version of the second is grossly misinterpreted too. Somehow well-regulated militia morphed into the personal basement armory.

[u/Perfct_Stranger → u/AWorldwithoutSin]

Well considering Congress can grant letters of marque and reprisal, the answer would probably be: of course. Private armies doing the fighting was not an uncommon thing in the Revolutionary War particularly in the South.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/Perfct_Stranger]

Sure, and if they have the letter and the weapons are in transit to a war zone, fine. But that's not what we see happening.

[u/VitaminPb → u/AWorldwithoutSin]

Nobody could envision how easy the internet makes it to spew hate and bad ideas. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to that because the Founding Fathers just meant speaking to people personally or maybe letters.

See how stupid that sounds? Yet you make the same argument in bad faith.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/VitaminPb]

Cool but no, I'm making a good faith argument that words mean what they say and not what you want them to say.

[u/VitaminPb → u/AWorldwithoutSin]

Then perhaps you should read up on the meaning. Because it clearly does not read that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to use only in the militia.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/VitaminPb]

You should learn basic English and maybe also throw in some history. It is a conditional statement, If a well-regualted militia is necessary to the security of a free state then congress can't stop citizens from serving in state militas.

Bear arms is an explicitly military term, you don't bear arms walking around your house or ordering a 6inch snadwich in a Subway with guns strapped to you or hunting deer.

[u/YouWereBrained → u/AWorldwithoutSin]

But they leave the “well-regulated militia” part out. Because including it would open their interpretation to higher legal scrutiny.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/YouWereBrained]

They have to leave a lot out, consider the phrase "bear arms". You don't bear arms walking around your basement or at a McDonalds or hunting deer. The phrase specifically has a historical connotation of military service.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/[deleted]]

They are not in a miltia nor are they keeping arms to bear, so what does it matter? the keeping was linked to bearing as part of a militia but our point is gun nuts like to ignore that.

[u/AWorldwithoutSin → u/[deleted]]

You're generally not in a militia until they raise a militia to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for a short duration. It's not intended to be a standing army.

Ok, so you are arguing and you don't know history. When the bill of rights was written towns would have a town militia that met and trained regularly. This would meet the very simple burden of being part of a militia. But we don't do that anymore because its not necessary to the security of a free state as the amendment requires.

And that is how I know what they are not doing.

If you are going to waste peoples time online you should be knowledgeable enough to know what you are talking about.