Congressional Action Needed on Presidential Health

candycorn

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2009
107,253
39,310
2,250
Deep State Plant.
Now that the GOP has the rock, I think they should launch a bill to make the annual presidential physical a federal law. Currently the President is not required to undergo any health physical. The disclosure, like income tax releases, was just something they did. But now I think the GOP should enact a bill to make it mandatory. And, depending on the make-up of the bill of course, I would support the concept and probably the bill.

Those who watched The West Wing may recall that the President hid a multiple sclerosis diagnosis (he had it before he became President) from the public. And while it was in remission, it wasn't showing up on his annual physicals. Of course, this is fiction. But it also has happened in the past. Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke on 10/2/1919 and was bedridden for most of the presidency thereafter. He developed dementia. His wife essentially ran the Presidency. While I doubt that would happen these days, like everything else, we should codify a statute stating that the President needs to go through a required health exam.

Mary Graham wrote a book on the subject called Presidential Secrets; The Use and Abuse of Hidden Power. On a podcast she recently said:

I think we’re going to have to have an act of Congress that provides the information. So​
financial disclosure is now routine. Shouldn’t we also have an annual health disclosure for a​
president who so much depends on? Some group can decide if there’s something in the report​
that suggests a developing health problem that might relate to the president’s capacity to​
govern, then that should be revealed. I really believe in the American people, if they have the​
information they’ll then decide what to do whether it’s at the next election or making their voices​
heard in a way that forces the people within the administration to face the issue.​
I think she makes some great points. I'm not so sure it should be something required for candidates but once they get into office, they become our employee. We should be able to know if the health of the guardian of the people's trust is physically able to do the job.

The Democrats would likely never go for it in this day and age with a Democratic president. So the bill, if introduced, should be set to go into effect in 2030 or at some other time in the future. I would say that they should do it quarterly.
 
The Constitution is explicit in listing qualifications for the presidency. Further adding restrictions would be unconstitutional. Separation of powers, remember?
It's not a qualification "for the presidency." It's a qualification to continue once in office. I'd add allowing only the telling of so many blatant lies to the public per day.
 
The Democrats would likely never go for it in this day and age with a Democratic president. So the bill, if introduced, should be set to go into effect in 2030 or at some other time in the future. I would say that they should do it quarterly.

What is this odd moment of clarity?

You mean the corrupt liars and cheats and gaslighters you defend here every blessed day might not be entirely on the up-and-up?
 
.

I was just going to suggest a new game for everyone here on USMB.

We could call it "First Proggy Reptilian To Cave".

We all try to guess who will be the first leftist vermin to start backpedaling and eventually swear that they were a right winger all along.


.
 
.

I was just going to suggest a new game for everyone here on USMB.

We could call it "First Proggy Reptilian To Cave".

We all try to guess who will be the first leftist vermin to start backpedaling and eventually swear that they were right wingers all along.


.

Thanks for my first laugh out loud today--I mean that. This is good.

I don't think they'll go full "right wing" but here in Corny's post is an amazing admission. Gosh, some presidents are "unhealthy"? But of course, "democrats" won't admit that while a democrat is in office so.....

oh man, good stuff. What's next? The masks didn't work? 😲 :auiqs.jpg:
 
Well that was odd. You're concerned about the health and mental stability of American Presidents, but didn't make a single reference to Joe Biden?

He's just a lovable old Grandfatherly guy from Scranton who tends to forget things and has a few quirks, right?

:laughing0301:
Thats Donald Tramp!!
 
Now that the GOP has the rock, I think they should launch a bill to make the annual presidential physical a federal law. Currently the President is not required to undergo any health physical. The disclosure, like income tax releases, was just something they did. But now I think the GOP should enact a bill to make it mandatory. And, depending on the make-up of the bill of course, I would support the concept and probably the bill.

Those who watched The West Wing may recall that the President hid a multiple sclerosis diagnosis (he had it before he became President) from the public. And while it was in remission, it wasn't showing up on his annual physicals. Of course, this is fiction. But it also has happened in the past. Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke on 10/2/1919 and was bedridden for most of the presidency thereafter. He developed dementia. His wife essentially ran the Presidency. While I doubt that would happen these days, like everything else, we should codify a statute stating that the President needs to go through a required health exam.

Mary Graham wrote a book on the subject called Presidential Secrets; The Use and Abuse of Hidden Power. On a podcast she recently said:

I think we’re going to have to have an act of Congress that provides the information. So​
financial disclosure is now routine. Shouldn’t we also have an annual health disclosure for a​
president who so much depends on? Some group can decide if there’s something in the report​
that suggests a developing health problem that might relate to the president’s capacity to​
govern, then that should be revealed. I really believe in the American people, if they have the​
information they’ll then decide what to do whether it’s at the next election or making their voices​
heard in a way that forces the people within the administration to face the issue.​
I think she makes some great points. I'm not so sure it should be something required for candidates but once they get into office, they become our employee. We should be able to know if the health of the guardian of the people's trust is physically able to do the job.

The Democrats would likely never go for it in this day and age with a Democratic president. So the bill, if introduced, should be set to go into effect in 2030 or at some other time in the future. I would say that they should do it quarterly.
Why did you wait until the GOP had "the rock" before you said something? Why didnt you tell your own party when they had control of Congress and the Senate?
 
The Constitution is explicit in listing qualifications for the presidency. Further adding restrictions would be unconstitutional. Separation of powers, remember?
Yeah, try reading them. It was designed to be a living document, you ass.
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.
 
Thanks for my first laugh out loud today--I mean that. This is good.

I don't think they'll go full "right wing" but here in Corny's post is an amazing admission. Gosh, some presidents are "unhealthy"? But of course, "democrats" won't admit that while a democrat is in office so.....

oh man, good stuff. What's next? The masks didn't work? 😲 :auiqs.jpg:

Some presidents control the doctor.. like Ronnie Jackson.
 
I don't. Ralph Nader remains sharp as a tack at 88. One still needs to be wiping their own ass though. I'd draw the line there.
There seems to be bipartisan support for having it mandated that we pop the hood and check the engine of the presidents. So that is a good thing. The personal attacks are disappointing but the right wing has been on a losing streak for about six years now...it's easy to see why they're so upset.
 
Why did you wait until the GOP had "the rock" before you said something? Why didnt you tell your own party when they had control of Congress and the Senate?
I'd be greatly pleased if the Senate brought it up. I'd be more pleased in fact. But as a practical matter; we both know that won't happen.

While we're on the subject, I'd be just dandy with the once-floated idea of removing the Presidential authority for a nuclear first-strike. There is zero need to have one person with the power to be able to essentially end the world as we know it. If the Dems in the Senate or the Cons in the House were to re-float that initiative (pending the actual text of the bill) sign me up!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top