The 25th Amendment has been mentioned in public debate over the past eight years — often as a mechanism for removing a president from office. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. Adopted in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the amendment was designed not as a tool of removal, but as a practical framework to ensure continuity of presidential power. Its purpose is limited and precise: to address presidential inability and fill a vacancy in the vice presidency. It was not meant to address political dissatisfaction with a president. I know the history and intent of the amendment: I was given an opportunity to assist Congress in its development because of an article I wrote for the Fordham Law Review in 1963. The article detailed the history of the Constitution’s presidential succession provision and stated that an amendment on the subject was long overdue. Invited by the American Bar Association and leaders of Congress to become involved in this reform, I ultimately helped in the crafting and ratification of the 25th Amendment and in its implementation. In the decades since, I have studied and written extensively on its meaning and legislative history. Three of its sections have been implemented since adoption of the Amendment in 1967, and they are not controversial. It’s Section 4 — which empowers the vice president and the president’s Cabinet to declare a president disabled and enables Congress to resolve a case where the president disagrees with their declaration — that receives the attention. And it’s this section that has been at the center of the misunderstanding. In fact, what I see today is a gap between what the amendment was intended to do and how it is understood. As the world becomes more polarized and political parties more divided, the 25th Amendment is increasingly seen as a tool for presidential removal without a full understanding of its provisions and limitations. Quite the contrary, the 25th Amendment was intended to deal only with the discharge of the president’s powers and duties by the vice president, with details respecting the president’s four-year term in office. It is practical and consistent with the principle of separation of powers. Its purpose, carefully defined at the time of its adoption, remains narrower than discussions today suggests.The Constitution states that “in case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation or inability to… [TheTopNews] Read More.
3 weeks ago
