Another Run at the 25th Amendment House Democrats have introduced a new bill that would create a 17-member commission to review whether President Trump is fit to serve under the 25th Amendment. The effort is led by Rep. Jamie Raskin of New York, who has pushed similar ideas before and, apparently, has not been discouraged by the results. The proposal would look at whether the president is mentally or physically able to handle the job. In theory, this sounds like a constitutional safeguard. In practice, it looks a lot like Washington’s favorite hobby, turning every political fight into a grand emergency and then acting shocked when the public notices the theater. What the Bill Would Do The legislation leans on Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and Cabinet, or a body created by Congress, to say a president is unable to serve. Under this plan, congressional leaders from both parties would appoint commission members, along with former senior executive officials. The group would then pick a chair and carry out a medical review of the president’s ability to discharge the duties of office. But there is a small obstacle, and it is not exactly hidden…

What AB 2624 Would DoCalifornia lawmakers on the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 11-2 to advance AB 2624, a bill that has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of citizen journalism. The measure is being described by opponents as the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," a nickname that comes from one well-known activist reporter. According to the debate around the bill, it would create new civil penalties for people who record alleged fraud at immigrant service centers and then publish the footage. The proposal has turned into the sort of Capitol Hill drama that always arrives dressed as paperwork and leaves looking like a constitutional fight.https://twitter.com/ItsVictorNieves/status/2044185485061300680?ref_src=twsrc%5EtfwWhy Critics See A Free Speech ThreatCritics say the bill could let someone caught on camera seek an injunction that blocks further filming or posting for years, with damages that could start at $4,000 and rise if the video is not removed. They also warn that claims involving doxxing or an imminent threat could bring fines and even criminal exposure in the worst cases. Supporters of stronger privacy rules will say they are protecting vulnerable people from public exposure. But once lawmakers start handing out speech penalties this neatly, the public usually should ask who gets protected first…