Phrase of the Day: THE BEAUTY AND FUTILITY OF THE 25TH AMENDMENT

The 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on February 10, 1967, in response to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  Even though that was the major event that brought about its ultimate proposal and ratification, there were many instances prior to his assassination that also contributed. 

Prior to the 25th Amendment, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 was the guide.  It reads:
        "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."

Events that also contributed the ratification of the amendment include the "Tyler Precedent" (John Tyler succeeding William Henry Harrison, upon Harrison's death in office) and Woodrow Wilson's stroke and cover-up of his incapacity to perform presidential duties by his wife and an aide.  In the wake of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and impeachment proceedings against his Vice-President and successor, Andrew Johnson -- and no Vice-President serving under Johnson -- the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, which addressed vacancies in both offices of President and Vice-President, would have been invoked.  (During the period of Lincoln's assassination through the end of Andrew Johnson's presidency, a total of four years, there was no Vice-President of the United States.)

The 25th Amendment has four Sections, and reads as follows:
        Section I:  In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or
        resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
        Section II:  Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the
        President shall nominate a Vice President, who shall take office upon confirmation
        by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.
        Section III:  Whenever the President transmits to the president pro tempore of the
        Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration
        that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
        transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties
        shall be discharged by the Vice President as acting President.
        Section IV:  Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal
        officers of the executive departments, or of such other body as Congress may by
        law provide, transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker
        of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
        unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall
        immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.
       
        Thereafter, when the President transmits to the president pro tempore of the
        Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration
        that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless
        the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
        department, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit
        within four days to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the
        House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
        discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
        the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session.
        If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written
        declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after
        Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses
        that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
        Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as acting President;
        otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It is easy to see how the founders did not want a repeat of a singular leader dictating things to the people.  In this specific case, it was to avoid having a king dictating who would succeed him and to allow people (specifically those who ascended to serve in Congress) to have an organized manner -- a say in the matter, if you will -- of presidential succession.  That is the beauty of this amendment, not to mention the Constitution in its entirety, and it stems from the wisdom and foresight of this country's founders.

This amendment to the Constitution has been receiving large amounts of attention lately, even to the point of receiving as much, if not more, attention than the 2nd Amendment.  (That takes some doing in this country!)  The attention has been in relation to President Trump in light of his mean-spirited, misinformed, incendiary, self-contradictory, ignorant, racist, and possibly early-stages-of-dementia comments and actions. 

The beauty of the 25th Amendment, however, has now been matched by a new foe.  In this first quarter of the twenty-first century, a half-century after the amendment itself was ratified, and centuries after the founders drafted, proposed, and passed the U.S. Constitution, it is now equally matched by something our founders had not counted on, or at least thought unlikely ... a complacent Congress enabling a President who should be ousted.

For every commentary by a Republican senator or congressperson saying President Trump did or said something he should not have, there are many times as many who remain silent.  Some of those who condemn even flip and back off their condemnation. 

For context, the language and actions of the President Trump do not measure up to a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment would be appropriate.  However, does "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" include the kinds of un-presidential language and behavior that derides the office of the president?  If we consider the context under which the 25th Amendment (and, for that matter, the Presidential Succession Act of 1792) came into existence, it would seem to indicate incapacity in terms of physical constraint, including death.  Certainly, how Woodrow Wilson's stroke affected him would fall squarely under incapacity.

What about careless behavior, reckless behavior, and childish behavior?  All three of these kinds of behavior have been displayed by the President.  Does that fall under incapacity?  My answer is yes, it does.  If it derides the office of the President and democracy, ignores the Constitution, and does the opposite of protecting the American people, yes, that is an incapacity to fulfill the necessary duties.  His willingness to do those things without being forced to do so is the proof of his incapacity.

And yet, Congress says little and does far less ... sometimes even defending him.  Their behavior during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, itself rife with hatred, fear-mongering, and lies, was no different.  In terms of consistency, the Republicans in Congress have remained solid ... they supported the candidate then and they support this President now.  For them, it is party over country at any cost.  I am thoroughly convinced that they will stand up and do what is right for the country and its citizens only if they are directly attacked by the President (i.e. exposing dirty secrets, financial doom, destruction of property, harm to them and/or family members).  If that sounds far-fetched, ask yourself why, after all that he has done, is Trump still in office?  The 25th Amendment is a powerful tool, but what good is that powerful tool if you refuse to use it?

Ask the Republican Party.

Terry