My last installment was a short synopsis of what can be considered a Constitutional Crisis. Doing the background reading for that article made me interested in the 25th Amendment, so I continued with my often haphazard study routine.
In no way do I claim to be a constitutional scholar. Heck, I don’t even play one on TV. I’m just a citizen and voter who is interested in how our government is supposed to function.
The formal title of the 25th is The Presidential Succession And Disability Amendment. It was proposed by Congress in 1965 after the assassination of JFK. It was fully ratified by 1967.
The amendment only has 4 sections, and while the process outlined for removing a POTUS is not as complicated or protracted as the actual amendment process itself, its nonetheless very specific and detailed.
Sec. 1 Under this section, the VP becomes President if the president dies or is removed. This is automatic and doesn’t need to be specifically invoked.
Sec. 2 This focuses on the office of VP. The President nominates a new VP who must be confirmed by Congress (in case of an impending vacancy of the office.) This fills any vacancy in the office of VP. Until the 25th Amendment, this vacancy continued until the next POTUS chose a VP. The office of VP has been vacant many times throughout our history until the 25th.
Sec. 3 This allows for the transfer of power. The POTUS can voluntarily transfer authority to the VP by declaring in writing to Congress his inability to fulfill the duties of the office. The VP then becomes the “acting” POTUS, but is not actually the president. The president remains in office, but has no authority. He or she can regain power by declaring in writing he or she is now able to do so. This particular provision was put in place in case of any medical procedures that could render the POTUS temporarily unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
Sec. 4 This section is more complicated and is what most people think the entire amendment is about. It addresses the issue of when the POTUS cannot fulfill the office, but also doesn’t or cannot provide written declaration of the fact as required in Section 3.. Then, the VP plus “…a majority of principal officers of the executive department (i.e. Cabinet members of which there are 15) or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” are to produce in writing that the POTUS is unable. The VP then takes over duties, however the sitting POTUS remains in office (as in Sec. 3)
There is no clear meaning in the actual text of the 25th for the words “unable” and “inability”. This is intentional and is meant to cover all cases of medical procedures and conditions, as well as other possible circumstances that would prevent a sitting POTUS from discharging the power of the office. Subsequently, this creates a flexible contingency option.
President Trump has faced the 25th Amendment twice. The first time was on Oct. 2, 2020. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi introduced legislation to remove him based on his announcement that he had tested positive for COVID 19. This, of course, went nowhere.
The second time was on Jan. 7, 2021. Senator Chuck Shumer suggested that Trump be removed from office after the Jan. 6 Capital “riot”. Trump only had about two weeks left in his first term at that point, so it was a moot issue.
So, how was President Biden “removed”? After the June 27, 2024 debate between Biden and Trump, it was evident there was a problem. On July 19, Pelosi and 30 senior Demsheviks talked Biden out of running for re-election. He then officially ended his candidacy on July 21st. He therefore became the first incumbent to end a campaign before election day since LBJ in 1968.
VP Harris was more or less “installed” in Biden’s place. Granted, she did win a virtual roll call vote, but this was only done to sort of save face due to the late date of Biden’s departure.
Here’s the hypothetical question: Could the Demsheviks have used the 25th to oust Biden, thus making Harris “acting” POTUS? It would have been entirely legitimate to do so, and this would have put her in power without being officially in office.
And here’s another hypothetical: By using the 25th and installing Harris, would that have given her a bit of an edge, even as a “temporary incumbent”? At the very least, such action would have given the Demsheviks even a marginal air of constitutionality.
Instead, they opted for what amounted to the proverbial palace coup, and they covered their collective backsides with the roll call vote, which was a slam dunk anyhow.
The Demsheviks, who scream at the sky about a Constitutional Crisis DuJour, could have had the Constitution on their side, thus improving their brand with voters. But no. Their hatred for Trump, “trumped” (…pun intended…) their following any lawful, Constitutional pathway.
They missed their chance to fully understand — and work through — a true Constitutional Crisis. We can only pray that they continue to be this ignorant.
