'Dangerous to an unprecedented degree': Psychiatrists warn Congress that Trump incites violence

[LegalAmerican]

Except that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment. There would have to be substantial probable cause before such a medical exam could be forced. "I hate Trump" is not probable cause, and that, really, is all the Dems and their shills (e.g. these psychiatrists) have.

Correct.  Most go into this field, because..THEY have personal issues!  Psychiatrists are no better, level headed, stable, etc. 
Think about it. They are LIBERAL SCHOOL, SCHOOLED! 

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh goodie.  [personal insult redacted].

Are you going to answer that, or just insult the questioner?

[Bill Cipher]

Are you going to answer that, or just insult the questioner?

I’m going to insult someone who deserves to be insulted with such a ridiculous statement.  If one is going to fling around the provisions of the Constitution, one should know whereof one speaks. 

The fourth amendment is not going to apply to a legitimate medical inquiry about the presidents mental health.  If for no other reason than that the constitution itself makes that a live issue. 

[PeteS in CA]

Are you going to answer that, or just insult the questioner?

LOL! Ad hominem attacks communicate an implicit and inadvertent unintended message, . Which I've been known to exploit for ... elsewhere, obviously. I'm a noob here - less than a week - but I started in Internet discussion sites when Bill Clinton was President.

When people balk at things like probable cause requirements, due process, and prosecutor's burden of proof they reveal their character and lack of foresight.

ETA: Bill posted while I was composing this post.

[Cyber Liberty]

I’m going to insult someone who deserves to be insulted with such a ridiculous statement.  If one is going to fling around the provisions of the Constitution, one should know whereof one speaks. 

The fourth amendment is not going to apply to a legitimate medical inquiry about the presidents mental health.  If for no other reason than that the constitution itself makes that a live issue.

Well, that's slightly better than the previous post.  As for the insulting, Briefers don't deserve to be insulted because you think you are above answering simple questions, as I know you are capable. 

[PeteS in CA]

An involuntary psych exam is an act forced by government, whether the target is a homeless guy camping by a creek or the President of the US. Therefore the 4th Amendment requirement for probable cause applies. Such an exam would be a breach by government of the security of the target's person. The 4th Amendment limits government actors generally, not just law enforcement officers.

[Bill Cipher]

Yeah, no.  I don’t think so.  If the president is unable to fulfill the office because of a suspected mental problem, the fourth amendment won’t stand in the way of removal of a forced examination. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, no.  I don’t think so.  If the president is unable to fulfill the office because of a suspected mental problem, the fourth amendment won’t stand in the way of removal of a forced examination.

That's a matter for the 25th, and it's been tried unsuccessfully.  I agree the 4th is not a proper application.

[Free Vulcan]

Yeah, no.  I don’t think so.  If the president is unable to fulfill the office because of a suspected mental problem, the fourth amendment won’t stand in the way of removal of a forced examination.

I understand that, but it should well apply if say the Dems tried to use this partisan hackery to do so.

[Bill Cipher]

An involuntary psych exam is an act forced by government, whether the target is a homeless guy camping by a creek or the President of the US. Therefore the 4th Amendment requirement for probable cause applies. Such an exam would be a breach by government of the security of the target's person. The 4th Amendment limits government actors generally, not just law enforcement officers.

@PeteS in CA

You are correct that the analysis would have to start there. 

I apologize for flying off the handle earlier. 

That being said, I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would apply exactly the same standards of proof that apply in the garden variety search case, and I rather think that a refusal to sit for a mental exam when there was some credible evidence of possible problems would by itself constitute sufficient grounds to impeach the president. 

Never been tested, of course, and hopefully never will, but I doubt if exactly the same rules that apply to an ordinary police search would be applied to such a case.

[PeteS in CA]

@PeteS in CA

You are correct that the analysis would have to start there. 

I apologize for flying off the handle earlier. 

That being said, I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would apply exactly the same standards of proof that apply in the garden variety search case, and I rather think that a refusal to sit for a mental exam when there was some credible evidence of possible problems would by itself constitute sufficient grounds to impeach the president. 

Never been tested, of course, and hopefully never will, but I doubt if exactly the same rules that apply to an ordinary police search would be applied to such a case.

Thanks and accepted. You are, I believe, correct that the 4th is seldom applied to government operatives outside of law enforcement, but I am aware of a late 1990s case in which it was applied to a CA Department of Social Services (CA-speak for CPS) social worker as well as the police officer assisting her. I'm not in the legal profession nor involved in the case, but had another interest in it.

[Smokin Joe]

I’m going to insult someone who deserves to be insulted with such a ridiculous statement.  If one is going to fling around the provisions of the Constitution, one should know whereof one speaks. 

The fourth amendment is not going to apply to a legitimate medical inquiry about the presidents mental health.  If for no other reason than that the constitution itself makes that a live issue.

So, in order to make sure the loonies in Congress are in fact, organic loonies, we can drug test the lot of them in order to separate the real loonies from the ones who are just 'on something'?

[Cyber Liberty]

So, in order to make sure the loonies in Congress are in fact, organic loonies, we can drug test the lot of them in order to separate the real loonies from the ones who are just 'on something'?

I like that idea.  I also want them following the same laws we have to follow.

[PeteS in CA]

So, in order to make sure the loonies in Congress are in fact, organic loonies, we can drug test the lot of them in order to separate the real loonies from the ones who are just 'on something'?

Mad Maxine? Eric Swillwell? SheLiah? Adam Schiff?

[Bill Cipher]

So, in order to make sure the loonies in Congress are in fact, organic loonies, we can drug test the lot of them in order to separate the real loonies from the ones who are just 'on something'?

Possibly. But now you’re raising issues that have definite criminal implications and the fourth amendment will apply with more force than it would to the president viz. his mental health.

Run it up the flagpole with your congress members.