Reid K. Beveridge has covered politics in Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin, Delaware and Washington, D.C. He resides near Georgetown.
“We’ve got to get rid of that man,” my friend said, referring to President Donald Trump somewhat early in his first term. My friend is hardly a left-wing crazy but presumably would have favored Trump’s removal from office under the 25th Amendment.
There was no serious consideration of such an action in 2017, of course. That is because the grounds for removal have to do with whether the individual is able to do the job, not whether you agree with him and, more especially, whether that president has committed a crime.
The 25th Amendment has fulfilled its intention in a couple ways but not in its most important way. The point here is to provide a transfer of power to the vice president when necessary. One frequently used example is when the president goes under general anesthesia and is unable to make critical decisions.
He simply notifies the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of such a temporary disability and then the required notification that he is again functional, and all is well. In the years after the amendment was ratified in 1967, such instances were often publicly noted. Now, not so much.
Another feature of the amendment is to provide the appointment of a vice president when that office becomes vacant, a not-uncommon dilemma. Three examples suffice:
The vice presidency was also vacant twice after 1967. First was when President Richard M. Nixon’s vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, resigned in connection with bribery allegations from his time as governor of Maryland.
Nixon then appointed House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford vice president, and he was confirmed by two-thirds votes in the House of Representatives and Senate.
And then, because President Nixon resigned, Ford became president. The new commander in chief appointed New York Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller vice president.
So far, so good. These situations were relatively noncontroversial and nonpartisan.
The amendment’s fourth provision is the issue here. During President Trump’s first term, it was suggested that his vice president, Mike Pence, should invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and get two-thirds of the Cabinet to agree that Trump was unable to function as president and should, therefore, be removed involuntarily.
If that was such a good idea, one wonders why it also wasn’t a good idea last year. But no, no serious discussion about it. Why?
The presenting situation clearly turns on the issue of “unable.” Was Joe Biden able or unable to execute the office of president of the United States?
Or, more to the point, who decides that? And, if the men and women working closest to the president are unable or unwilling to make such a decision, then who does?
The most obvious flaw here, and it’s unclear if it could ever be addressed, is that a vice president — any vice president — has a giant conflict of interest. It would look like a coup. The further flaw is that, though the vice president couldn’t be fired, any and all cabinet secretaries could be.
Which might or might not be relevant. The more relevant and presenting issue likely would be how intensely partisan the political landscape has become.
The late 1960s’ political landscape was such that one could imagine a Democrat or Republican voting to remove a president of his or her own party if it was clear that the president was unable to do the work. No more.
Can you imagine Sens. Chris Coons or Lisa Blunt Rochester or Rep. Sarah McBride, all D-Del., voting to remove any Democratic president, much less Joe Biden?
President Woodrow Wilson returned from Paris and the Versailles peace conference in 1919, only to suffer a massive stroke, destroying his ability to function. His wife, Edith Wilson, pretty much ran the White House for the remainder of his term.
Regrettably, it appears that the 25th Amendment has not fixed this problem.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
