- Dr. James D. Boys
Events in the Middle East always make for strange bedfellows, but few have been more diverse than those hankering for President Donald J. Trump’s removal from office via the 25th Amendment. Democratic members of congress, academics, casual observers, celebrities, and members of the #NeverTrump coalition who have yet to come to terms with his first, yet alone second victory, have suddenly emerged as experts in an amendment designed to address presidential incapacity in office.
But how viable is such a move and what does the amendment stipulate?
Throughout most of the United States’ history there was no constitutional remedy to replace a stricken, but still living, president. The vice president, an all-too-often overlooked figure in political life, could assume control only once a sitting president expired. Until then, they remained out of power, out of sight, and usually, out of favour. Only in the past several decades has the vice presidency achieved its more vaunted status. This ensured that on several occasions over the past 250 years, the United States has been effectively leaderless or led in an unofficial capacity by an unelected person or persons claiming to act in the name of the president.
Between 1865 and 1901 three presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. In all three instances, death did not occur immediately, resulting in three awkward moments, measured in days and even months, during which the president hovered between life and death with no way of replacing him until he finally succumbed to his wounds.
In October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke as he campaigned seeking support for the League of Nations. With over a year left of his second term in office, and unwilling to resign, he remained in power, but increasingly unable to govern, ensuring that his wife, Edith Wilson, assumed effective control of the country.
Constitutional amendments have tended to be instigated in direct result to events and the 25th was no exception, coming as it did in the wake of President Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963. In that instance, confusion existed as to when executive authority passed to Lyndon Johnson. Was it when the president’s death was confirmed by doctors at the Dallas hospital, or when LBJ finally took the oath of office aboard Air Force One. As over two hours elapsed between the shooting and the swearing in, questions naturally arose as to who was in charge of the country during that time.
The 25th amendment, ratified in February 1967, was designed to address these issues of presidential succession and the continuity of government, a vital concept especially during the Cold War. Of the four sections within the amendment, 3 relate directly to the straightforward transfer of power to the vice-president following either the death, resignation, or declared incapacity of the president. Those hankering for President Trump’s removal from office via a constitutional coup d'état pin their hopes on Section 4. They will be disappointed.
The Section notes that a Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet officers may write to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, informing them that the President can no longer discharge his powers and duties, whereupon the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If the President disagrees, however, he can re-assume his office simply by informing the same congressional leadership of his ability and intent to do so. If the Vice President (as Acting President) and a majority of the Cabinet officers challenge this, Congress would be forced to determine who would lead the country. It would, however, take a two-thirds majority in both Houses to remove a sitting president and replace him with the vice president who would continue as Acting President.
Of course, none of this has ever been implemented, and it is clear that if any effort were made to enact the amendment based on political disagreements, rather than any medical incapacity, it would place the country in a complete crisis. The amendment was designed to address presidential incapacity, NOT to remove him from office over political disagreements.
The current debate over the amendment is occurring due to President Trump’s statements and actions regarding Iran. But his position has remained unchanged for several decades, having repeatedly called Iran an existential threat to the United States. In so doing, he has echoed calls from successive presidents and presidential candidates over the years, including Hillary Clinton. Yet Donald Trump, we are told by his critics, is somehow different: he is a madman. Or is he perhaps, adopting the Madman Theory whereby a sane president feigns madness and threatens seemingly irrational acts to achieve a stated ambition. If so, his strategy of deception may be working a little too well.
Regardless of the president’s state of mind, it is one thing for celebrities, faded athletes, and academics from other fields of expertise to talk of ‘invoking’ the 25th amendment, but it really is quite another when members of both houses of congress do so, for it reveals their total ignorance on the laws that govern the land. There is simply no role for Congress to play in ‘invoking’ the 25th amendment. Those seeking to suggest otherwise are playing the public for fools, whilst simultaneously revealing their own foolishness.
