That’s not how the 25th Amendment works. It needs the VP and the majority of the Cabinet.
25th Amendment: Section 4
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. - SOURCE
I guess if the president does not try to regain the position then congress has no role. If the president wants the position back and the VP fights it then congress intervenes.
I am not sure though. This one is kinda hard to parse and IANAL.
For instance…when does “acting president” become “president?” I assume “acting president” does not get to pick a VP. But does that mean Harris as acting president is still also VP so can tiebreak in the Senate? Could she make cabinet appointments or nominate supreme court justices or other judicial noominations? If she dies as acting president does that mean the speaker of the house becomes acting president? Or president?
I dunno.
There are a bunch of serious U.S. migration problems.
For example, asylum seekers are waiting years for a hearing, and many months before they can legally work. During that time, they are put up at government expense in hotels. This is widely publicized real news and is likely to be a factor in getting Trump re-elected, or him coming damn close to it. Sounds like a real problem to me.
The Kamala side of this is that she was appointed by Biden to control immigration through the U.S.-Mexico border, an impossible job due to congressional deadlock.
The presidency is, to me, a horrible job because you have all the responsibility but only fragmentary ability to shape outcomes. By giving Harris an important part of his own job, Biden put her in his own situation. Not to criticize Joe — anything significant he might give her to do would be a bit like that. If he literally gave her nothing to do, I’ll bet she would poll better.
And if you call her by her last name, which is the traditional way we’ve always referred to male politicians, that’s even easier to spell.
There are journalistic standards regarding this which have been in place as long as I can remember and they are not concerned with gender at all. If the standards are followed, IIRC (I can’t find my AP Style Manual for some reason…it’s gotta be around here somewhere), you would refer to a politician by their title and full name on fist mention. E.G. Vice president Kamala Harris. All references to her after that is just “Harris.” This holds true for any politician (probably any person).
Of course, this is a message board so a lot less formal but, I think, it is good practice to adhere to those standards unless you (general “you”) mean to be disrespectful.
Except those better known by their Initials- JFK, FDR. In which case it would be “President Kennedy” then JFK.
Trump MUST NOT get on the ticket.
The answer to the OP is no.
Biden could be sitting in a wading pool rubbing whipped cream in his hair and singing Boy Scout songs, and he’d be a better president than Trump.
Please get your priorities straight.
Harris was given an unpopular, difficult assignment that kept her out of the public eye. Biden should have given her something “sexier” to raise her popularity. That aside, the answer is of course no.
I’m trying to imagine what that assignment could be.
I guess she could go to international meetings that normally would be attended by the President. But then it would look like Joe was too old to go and/or that Biden was disrespecting the prime ministers who came in person.
The only issue I can think of where the Democratic position is popular, and that conceivably generates more news than immigration coming through Mexico, is abortion. But I am at a loss as to what she could do that would keep her more in the public eye without generating a great deal of negative publicity.
Well, as I recall Biden was tasked with going around the country talking up the good things Obama had done for people. And Harris has had to break a lot of ties, which unfortunately keeps her out of the public eye.
I will admit I’ve run into difficulties with this standard when talking about Hillary Clinton. If I posted about how Clinton was doing during in the primaries, for example, it always seemed unclear.
Is that a big deal? Youngish People get lost trying to find their way out of my single story building with several clearly marked exit signs. I sometimes can’t tell which way to turn after exiting a drs exam room. This way? No that way!
Border plan does exist. Best plan yet since the Reagan years.
If you are only talking about Hillary Clinton in your post then you establish that by using her full title and name once and then just say “Clinton.”
If you are talking about both in the same post then say, “Bill Clinton” and/or “Hillary Clinton” to avoid confusion.
I’m pretty certain that if we had a camera on us damn near 24/7, a lot of us would look clumsy if you want to hyper focus on just moments of every day.
How many times have you put the ketchup in the cupboard instead of the refrigerator or any other such similar event? I stumble on this damn loose step of mine every day. If that’s all you see, you might form a bad impression.
Seriously, this is not a concern for me, but I would like to get more of the accomplishments of Vice President Harris better talked about in the press. Maybe the fears of some folks could be laid to rest.
The New York Times still uses Mrs. Clinton a lot. September 2023:
I recall reading long ago that the Times asks prominent women for preferences.
I don’t find “Mrs. Harris” in the New York Times. I do find, infrequently, Ms. Harris. Someone must have asked Kamala Harris for preferences.
My personal system, when posting, is to vary name use, while hopefully avoiding choices that would annoy readers.
I think that, according to traditional old-timey etiquette, “Mrs.” would imply that she took her husband’s name.
Moderating:
I think we’ve hijacked this thread with this discussion for long enough. Let’s drop it now and continue with the actual discussion. Thanks.
Biden should have been raising her up as a partner in the administration throughout, as to no small degree Obama had done for him.
I see the criticism of Biden as mostly unfounded and see him as having been an effective president with solid accomplishments despite being saddled with an opposition more committed to kneecapping him than serving the country.
But his failure to elevate Harris’s stock has been a major miss. That’s on him not on her.
So the post of VP is completely meaningless and powerless nowadays (other than Dubya-Cheney, but that was a special arrangement). The only time the post is remotely relevant is if the president dies or has to resign. So basically choosing a different VP is saying:
- Biden does not expect to get through the next term without dying or being forced to resign.
- He is regretting his choice of VP so much he does not trust Kamala Harris to be POTUS.
That does not seem like a winning message going into a general election