I believe we have a very recent case study , that the 25th amendment can never be enacted.
Given the recent (or leaked bits of upcoming) book releases, it seems obvious that Joe Biden was widely viewed by staff as unable fulfill the role of President; but not only was he allowed to continue. He was nominated for another term.
It seems the very people that can move forward with the 25th amendment are so beholden to the President, they effectively they can not act in the interests of the country.
Thoughts?
What books are you talking about?
Cite?
Not actually. Biden had won more than enough delegates to be the presumptive nominee (as he didn’t really face any significant challengers during the primaries), but he withdrew from the race about two weeks prior to the Democratic National Convention, which is where he would have been nominated – and, thus, at the convention, Kamala Harris was nominated.
Even if we grant all the claims made in the first paragraph, the conclusion doesn’t follow. All we can say is that, on this occasion, the VP and the cabinet officers didn’t invoke the 25th amendment; we can’t say that it can never be invoked on any occasion.
Nor is it necessarily the case that they didn’t invoke the 25th because they were “so beholden to the President”; other considerations may have been at work. The VP in particular was not beholden to the President — he couldn’t remove her — and in fact stood to acquire considerable power, and the probability of the nomination, if the amendment were invoked.
I think the logic behind defaulting to the Cabinet (Congress can always change it to another body) was that they’d the group least likely to give the appearance of staging a coup. The most likely scenarios envisioned for section 4 were POTUS having a stroke or falling into a coma where the incapacity would be undeniably obvious.
I don’t know about the book the OP is talking about, or about Biden’s camp, but the current president can’t string together a coherent sentence, and he just started a global trade war on the advice of a fictional character. So I think that’s a pretty good case study for the 25th amendment as well.
Sorry I would have provided a source.
This is one of several articles I have read along the same lines
To the best of my knowledge, the intent of the 25th Amendment wasn’t to facilitate the removal of a President who is ill prepared to engage in a political debate or win an election.
My understanding is that it came from the possibility : “What if Oswald hadn’t been such a good shot?”
IE that he badly injured Kennedy, possibly causing brain damage that robbed him of his capacities, but didn’t kill him.
From what I saw the book relied upon anonymous quotes from “friends and family”. - in other words- worthless. Biden was examined by top medical experts, and other than his disastrous debate, showed himself to be mentally fit and alert. Yes, they have some real quotes- by someone who is trying to sell his own upcoming book. And even so- Even after the disastrous debate, by his own telling to Whipple, Klain believed Biden should have stayed in the race – a statement that jars with Klain’s account of debate prep at Camp David. Most of it was about how badly Biden did in that debate- where he had a cold and jet lag. Joe should have skipped that debate, sure, no doubt. And maybe he shouldn’t have run for re-election, maybe.
I’d remind the OP that the impetus behind the 25th Amendment was “What if JFK survived the headshot”, not "Our President went a little funny in the head and he went and did a silly thing. He ordered our planes to attack your country.”
Or that “he did really bad in a debate.” Okay, that could be a reason for asking someone to not run again, sure, but not stepping down when only 6 months or so left.
Who do you suggest could stop an individual from running for election as President? The 25th Amendment has nothing to do with the electoral process.
But the drafters of the amendment also allowed for the possibility that the President would contest their inability, which clearly is considering things like senility or insanity.
We also know now, which we didn’t then, that Biden had covid at the time of fhat debate. It’s much more likely that his poor performance was because of being sick than it was a sign of permanent impairment.
Right, they likely also considered the Wilson precedent. Was he incapicitated by his stroke, or not? Mrs Wilson tightly controlled access to the President.
If the 25th Amendment had been in force and been triggered, there likely would have been a contestation from the White House, asserting that the President was just fine and in full control.
And Congress might then have said, “Mr President, please release your medical advisor’s opinions, and allow a Congressional delegation to come and meet with you.”
I would think everyone would agree that suddenly starting a war for clearly delusional reasons would be a completely valid reason to invoke the 25th.
Remember, assuming the President contests his removal, you need not only the Cabinet but two-thirds of both houses of Congress to agree to remove him/her. It’s intended for emergency situations in which the President’s incapacity is obvious and the normal impeachment procedure would be too time-consuming. If the President’s incapacity is gradually becoming obvious, one would expect that impeachment would become politically feasible well before a 25th Amendment intervention would.
The extent of Biden’s cognitive impairment is obviously highly controversial. I think there’s a pretty large grey area in between “really shouldn’t try to keep this up for another four years” and “urgently needs to be removed from office right now”, and he was probably in there.
Is dementia a “high crime or misdemeanour”? There was one early case where a judge with dementia was impeached and removed, but it was controversial.
I think it would be even more controversial to use impeachment for an ailing president.