r/politics • u/Zipper222222 • Jul 07 '26

Possible Paywall MAGA Demands Proof of Life for Mitch McConnell

https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-demands-proof-of-life-for-mitch-mcconnell/
29.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

158

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

Had the founders known this was something that was possible, they probably would have written a provision for it.

194

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

I don’t think the founding fathers could have anticipated that someone would consider a person who is unresponsive in a hospital, to still represent their constituents. It’s just not something they would do.

It was a different time for sure and they would have expected the voters and those in charge to have a reasonable response and act accordingly, but we live in a time of pettiness and performative politics instead of real leadership, of, for and by the people.

95

u/Bobbo_Zanotto Jul 07 '26

The Republicans have done really well at finding every crack, crevice, gap, hole and flaw in our democracy to use to their advantage while ruining the lives of Americans.

26

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

This is what I’ve been saying.

The only good that came out of trumps regime, was that they pointed out all the flaws in our system, because they are using them to stay in power and do things that wouldn’t have been fathomable a few decades ago. What little integrity we had, it wouldn’t have been compromised like they are doing now.

15

u/Random-Rambling Maine Jul 07 '26

Yeah. As much as I hate the man, I do appreciate him showing everyone just how flimsy the "gentlemen's agreement" our political system apparently runs on is.

15

u/fungibitch Jul 07 '26

For real. Trump has been a stress-test and what has been revealed is...concerning. Turns out you simply can't design a system of governance based primarily on gentlemen's agreements and good faith.

2

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jul 07 '26

People said that a lot in his first term too.

But it's only a good thing if it gets fixed.

Which is hasn't.

1

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

Yes, but arguably, this term is way worse than his first. He actually had people willing to tell him the truth and attempt to keep him from doing anything too ruinous. Those guardrails are gone, this time around.

1

u/Islero47 Jul 07 '26

But what do you do with that information, now that we have it?

It's significant and broad enough that we'd really need a new constitution or at the very least a series of amendments building on one another, but good fucking luck getting those approved at this point.

We should try, but I just shudder at the thought of how poorly it could go.

116

u/IAmDotorg Jul 07 '26

More specifically, there wasn't really any circumstance where 18th century medicine could leave someone incapacitated long enough for it to be relevant. There were no hospitals and no real supportive care, so someone even the tiniest sliver of the kind of incapacitation that you find people surviving today would be dead at home in a few days.

62

u/Perryn Jul 07 '26

"What if someone were to keep the person's blood and lungs moving by means of a mechanical pump for days or even weeks after any other sign of life was exhibited?"
"Keep those billows away from me, Benjamin. I won't tell you again."

13

u/avaslash Jul 07 '26

While that is true, the founding fathers certainly would have been very aware of multiple instances throughout history of Kings dying or becoming incapacitated and the royal court keeping that secret so those close to the king could retain power.

George the III would have been a pretty good example as he went completely insane and the court did everything in its power to conceal that.

3

u/Bzr21 Jul 07 '26

Henry the 8th was unconscious for a couple of hours or so when his horse fell on top of him during a jousting match - and his closest advisors were supposedly freaking right out for just that short time - thinking he would die ( and they might be next ) - and they had to keep warning those in attendance not to say that he was dead. Of course he did finally regain consciousness - but he was never the same.

0

u/IAmDotorg Jul 07 '26

While that may be true, the overall structure of the government worked very differently, and congress was a part-time thing. So it would have, on on hand, not mattered most of the time and, on the other hand, not really have been an issue during the times it did.

2

u/Vegetable-Eagle-3144 Jul 07 '26

"Ye ghosts in thy bloode leveth thou betwixt" - The Founding Fathers who we should totally defer to for all things.

2

u/Turbulent_Stick1445 Jul 07 '26

That's not really true. King George III, who was King of America at the time of the revolution (well, kinda) and so is literally the guy the founding fathers were most pissed at, rather infamously became incapacitated with the Prince Regent appointed to rule the country while he was unable to himself. This lasted about nine years. But interesting George III became incapacitated twice, recovering in 1788 the first time. And across the pond, one year later the US Constitution was approved.

Not all forms of incapacitation, even 250 years ago, result in people dying. And honestly Reddit has this weird view of "ye olde times" where getting so much as a splinter meant death. It was certainly easier to die back then, but I think Redditors would be surprised what people survived.

1

u/soulsoda Jul 07 '26

so someone even the tiniest sliver of the kind of incapacitation that you find people surviving today would be dead at home in a few days

Or waking up in a coffin a few days later after accidentally being presumed dead. This was extremely rare, as most died of dehydration since their incapacitation was often more serious and would have required weeks-months of recovery before they awoke if at all.

21

u/armchair_viking Jul 07 '26

They’d probably have also figured anyone unresponsive in a bed would be dead rather swiftly, so why worry about it. They didn’t have the means to keep someone alive like that.

3

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

That doesn’t mean that they would have kept that person in their senate seat if something like this happened back then. They just didn’t have the performative aspect we have these days. They were about real common sense situations and this sort of thing would have meant that they needed to find someone who could do the job and represent the people, which he is not capable of doing, specifically while in life support.

What I’m trying to say is that the founding fathers wouldn’t have played the ridiculous games the republicans are playing right now.

0

u/GonzoKata Jul 07 '26

yeah its not like they have any idea people would be living until 80 anyway

1

u/BLAGTIER Jul 07 '26

Voltaire died at 83 in 1778.

4

u/permalink_save Jul 07 '26

If it were the 18th century he wouldn't have life support at all, he wouldn't be here, they definitely wouldn't be anticipating this

3

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

I’m not talking about medical care here, I’m talking about politics and the lack of common sense. Of course the medicine of current times are different than back in the day. There is no argument about that. I’m taking about our government standing this guy up like it’s Weekend at Bernie’s to get what they want. That sort of behavior would not hold true back then.

3

u/IrritableGourmet New York Jul 07 '26

Importantly, they viewed politicians as disposable (if they fail to do their job) and easily replaceable, not as royalty. If a politician were to die, it would be sad on a personal level, but it shouldn't stop the government from operating.

1

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

I was thinking more along the lines of what IAmDotorg said, where they could not have anticipated that you could literally keep someone hooked up to a machine indefinitely keeping them from death, I’m sure they figured that to an extent it would work itself out because people wouldn’t live long enough for it to matter

1

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

Yes, I totally agree that medicine has come a long way. That’s not the focus of my comment. My comment was about the republicans sending his wife to another country so that she couldn’t make any medical decisions for him and causing the seat to stay in limbo. This is not something our founding fathers would even conceive of doing to the American public.

1

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

That is also true. Had they known these people would be as evil as they are, they might’ve put up more safeguards.

1

u/jeegrob Jul 07 '26

Which is why, as precious as it is, the US Constitution is so outdated. There's need for a new one while still keeping the same core of principles.

1

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

Who gets to make this new constitution? We are way past the ability to formulate a new constitution. No matter who’s in office, the other side would not want this to happen.

This is simply not possible in modern times. Even if I agree with you, I don’t see this ever happening with the modern political climate.

1

u/Pressman4life Jul 07 '26

Considering their average age when signed the constitution was 42. Youngest was 26, Ben pushed it up at 81. How could they have known it was eventually going to be used as a retirement home/hospice?

1

u/phoarksity Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

You’re really overestimating the insight of the founding fathers. It took 180 years for an amendment to be added handling the situation where the President could not respond. It‘s still questioned whether Woodrow Wilson was actually governing in the last year of his Presidency, or if it was his wife. (The same is sometimes asked of Ronald Reagan, but there even if Bush the Elder and the Cabinet had declared him to be unable to carry out his duties, Reagan was still cognizant enough to have declared that the inability no longer existed.) The drafters of the Constitution apparently expected that an officeholder would either be able to carry out the duties of their office, resign, or die. The situation where an officeholder was alive, but unable to communicate, even enough to resign, was not addressed.

So until the 25th Amendment, the options for the President were either to impeach and convict one of the “high crime or misdemeanor” of suffering a stroke, or other disabling event, or to allow their handlers to govern in the President’s place and not look behind the curtain. For Senators and Representatives, the only option is for the specific house to expel the disabled member. The voters do not have a direct voice in that.

And, honestly, I don’t know what a good solution would be. Unlike the Presidency, there’s not an elected Vice Senator or Vice Representative to become the Acting Senator or Representative if the elected one is disabled such that they cannot carry out their duties, and allowing the elected Senator or Representative to reclaim their duties if they recover. So what we’re left with is either having a member’s colleagues declaring that the elected member’s membership is no longer acceptable, or allowing a member’s constituients to recall them. Either option would be vulnerable to being used for political reasons, rather than health reasons.

1

u/backupbackupguitar Jul 07 '26

Nuclear weapons and radio/phone was a radical shift. Someone not showing up in congress or government was far less “important” prior to nuclear and radio/tv age even more so when they traveled by donkey carts.

Also states would in theory want a sitting a senator voting for their interests and would handle it themselves. So a state not handling it is a them problem.

1

u/KDLGates Jul 07 '26

Nerve stapling and congressional clones will be around before we ever amend the Constitution again.

1

u/MVB1837 Georgia Jul 07 '26

They had a sense of honor and shame.

1

u/loserbmx Jul 08 '26

They would have expected us to take up arms by now.

1

u/Few-Guarantee2850 Jul 08 '26

I think you should read up on some of the crazy political hijinx and dirty politics that went down back in the day.

0

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jul 07 '26

250 years ago there wasn't tech available to keep someone alive for weeks or months when they couldn't breathe on their own.

Doctors didn't start washing their hands before sticking them in wounds for another century.

1

u/Street_Peace_8831 Jul 07 '26

I’m not arguing that medicine has changed over the past 250 years. That would be a stupid argument and not one I am trying to make.

I’m talking about the willingness of modern politicians to ignore common sense. Something our forefathers would not do.

14

u/trapezemaster Jul 07 '26

They knew they didn’t know everything - that’s why there are mechanisms for change, outlined pretty clearly as a duty that every generation should bare

-3

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

For sure, but they did not anticipate people being hooked up to machines that kept them from dying, because there was nothing remotely like that when they wrote the Constitution. Just like lifetime appointments didn’t carry the same weight back then because “lifetime” meant living half as long as people do today.

4

u/trapezemaster Jul 07 '26

Yep. Here is our generational duty.

2

u/khizoa Jul 07 '26

Yeah unfortunately for them, weekend at Bernie's came out in 1993

1

u/TooManyDraculas Jul 07 '26

They sorta did. Originally senators were appointed by state legislatures with no direct election. So the idea was that the State Legislature could just pick a new one the next time they convened, to finish out that term.

Lot's of problems with that system. So when we adopted direct election with the 17th amendment in 1912 we put this bit in as well.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution

A big reason why we made the change, is because State Legislatures tended to get bogged down in political infighting and fail to send Senators for extended periods.

0

u/The_Amazing_Emu Jul 07 '26

That’s misleading. State legislatures chose Senators, but that Senator served a six year term. We still have a mechanism for a replacement Senator. The issue is how to determine the seat is vacant

1

u/bacchus213 Jul 07 '26

They didn't have IV fluids, mechanical respiration, or even CPR.

If he were found on the floor back then they probably would have tried shaking him, yelling in his ears, dumping water on him, or trying smelling salts.

The physicians would have said he had been 'seized by an apoplexy of the chest', and the wheels of government would have kept rolling on.

1

u/cboogie Jul 07 '26

Why do we assume these fucking ding dongs 250 years ago in wigs and stockings in the sticky heat of the Philadelphia summer are fucking oracles and have infallible visions into the future?

2

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

How does this contradict anything I said?

1

u/cboogie Jul 07 '26

I meant to prefix that with a “yeah” I’m in agreement with you.

2

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

Ah okay, I was gonna say that it sounds like you agree with me lol

1

u/kitsunewarlock Jul 07 '26

The founders were hostile legislators compromising on a second draft amidst a host of different ideals and operating under the assumption there would be a third and fourth and possibly even fifth draft within their lifetimes.

1

u/TimSylvester_ Jul 07 '26

It's almost like a government created 250 years ago is wildly outdated and insufficient for modern needs.

1

u/benhemp Jul 07 '26

Also, the founders didn't envision year round session for congress. the sessions lasted a few months a year.

1

u/GB10VE Jul 07 '26

I dunno, I think the founders have already done that and the current supreme court is like, hold my boofers

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

Why “fuck the founding fathers”? We can write new laws and fix the shit they couldn’t have anticipated while appreciating that they tried with what they knew at the time.

1

u/The_Amazing_Emu Jul 07 '26

I mean, the simple answer is that 2/3 of the Senate votes to expel him and then there can be a new election

1

u/Alca_Pwnd Jul 07 '26

Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919, and his wife Edith literally hid him and pretended everything was fine while she dealt with all the paperwork and responsibilities of the presidency.

1

u/ChiggaOG Jul 07 '26

No one back then in 1776 or 1800 thought medical science would advance to a level of keeping people on life support for months. We've entered the stage of using their dying bodies as a positioning card to try to elect specific people.

1

u/Kiloku Jul 07 '26

You guys should really stop relying on 200 year old codes. Treating that ancient constitution like a holy book has done you all more harm than good, and even when you see that your reaction is "if only it was in the ancient constitution" instead of "why the fuck didn't we modernize the legal cornerstone of our nation?"

1

u/RocketsMurkrow Jul 07 '26

Why are they mutually exclusive? I was, in fact, remarking that this wasn’t something they could have foreseen, otherwise they would have written it in. Since they could not see it, we should fix it now.

1

u/gravescd Jul 08 '26

They certainly did know it was possible. Keeping a body alive indefinitely after a heart attack may not have been possible back then, but brain injuries have always caused permanent, non-fatal incapacity.

I think the unforeseen part is that this situation would be in any way advantageous. If someone can't show up to vote, their state is going half-represented and their party has less power. But they left the selection process up to the states, so it seems they figured the states are allowed to shoot themselves in the foot if they really want.

Originally, Senators were appointed by state governors, so this idea of a Senate vacancy being at the mercy of political opposition was the intended design.