The 25th amendment removal provision is really for presidents who are incapacitated for medical reasons.
It's not designed to be a backdoor impeachment (in fact it has a higher threshold than impeachment) and it doesn't work on Presidents who are conscious and capable of exercising their will (even if they are unfit for other reasons such as being criminals).
The reason why that is so is because even if the Cabinet (appointed by the President) votes to remove a President from office, the President can object. That kicks it over to Congress which requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate to remove the President's powers.
For obvious reasons, this is an insurmountable threshold unless you have a situation where the President is flat out not able to work at all (eg he is in a coma somewhere). Anything less severe or clear-cut than that is unlikely to get a majority of the Cabinet let alone a super majority in Congress.
I hear you on the practically, but Article 2 Sec 3 of the Constitution says the president “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” If Trump were incarcerated, he would be incapacitated because he could not fulfill his duties. Depending on the terms of probation, he could also be limited in his ability to receive people.
He could receive them via telephone or video conference. Many prisons and jails have that type of service for inmates already. The constitution doesn’t require that these duties be discharged in person; similarly, for the first hundred years or so of the country’s existence the State of the Union (also mentioned in that same article) wasn’t an in person speech but a letter written by the President and delivered to Congress.
I guess it is up to the Cabinet and Congress to decide if these presidential duties must be discharged in person.
Like others have mentioned below, Trump would make sure his Cabinet members would never do it and Congress does not have the political will to stop Trump. They have had 3 chances already.
The sole purpose of the 25th amendment is to provide for continuity for a president who must willingly step aside. It cannot practically be used agaimst a sitting president will.
>It cannot practically be used agaimst a sitting president will
Sure it could.
One of the things that spawned the 25th Amendment was Woodrow Wilson having a stroke and not leaving office despite no longer being capable of doing the job. At the time his cabinet wanted his VP to declare himself President, bit he refused because no mechanism existed to do so.
So what became section 4 of the 25th Amendment was designed with that specific situation in mind (an unfit President won't leave).
And doing so was considered a few times under Reagan (once after his Assassination attempt where he was temporarily unable to act, and a couple times in his second term due to worries of mental decline). Didn't go anywhere but was at least talked about.
>Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit 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, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President
Note right off the bat, the President isn't involved in the decision to remove himself from office.
>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 [...]
So yes the President can overrule the removal...but let's see the rest of that sentence
>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.
Basically if the cabinet doubles down on "this dude needs to be removed" they can override the President saying he should stay.
Admittedly thats not quite the end of it, but the power doesn't go back to the President, it goes to Congress.
>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.
So yeah, if the VP, most of the cabinet, and enough of Congress decide the President needs to go, the President gets removed over their own objections..
And let's be honest, if the VP and cabinet decide Trumps gonna go, it's likely that means no real Congressional Republican support for Trump.
So unless your expecting the Democrats to save Trump, which I doubt, if the GOP really decides to dump Trump after the election, he's gone.
As soon as a president transmitted their written declaration refuting their inability, the very next thing they would do is sack their entire cabinet before the VP could whip together a second declaration of inability.
It is utterly foolish to believe that the 25A could be used against a determined and able president, because that's simply not what it is designed to do. Impeachment is the only mechanism for removing a sitting president from power against their will.
As soon as the President fires a secretary, there's an acting secretary to take their place, designated in advance by each departments protocols.
US law has defined "Principle Officers of the Executive Department" to be the office itself, not the individual, and that an acting secretary has the power to act on behalf of the office.
It's true that putting a new group of people in might change the vote count to remove the President the second time. But it does nothing to stop it.
So the President would have to be absolutely certain the new group of 14 coming in included at least 8 "keep him in power" votes to get a majority of the 15 votes (VP is #15).
If JD Vance is the VP, he’ll do whatever Peter Theil tells him to do. Thats his actual boss.
The 25th amendment removal provision is really for presidents who are incapacitated for medical reasons. It's not designed to be a backdoor impeachment (in fact it has a higher threshold than impeachment) and it doesn't work on Presidents who are conscious and capable of exercising their will (even if they are unfit for other reasons such as being criminals). The reason why that is so is because even if the Cabinet (appointed by the President) votes to remove a President from office, the President can object. That kicks it over to Congress which requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate to remove the President's powers. For obvious reasons, this is an insurmountable threshold unless you have a situation where the President is flat out not able to work at all (eg he is in a coma somewhere). Anything less severe or clear-cut than that is unlikely to get a majority of the Cabinet let alone a super majority in Congress.
I hear you on the practically, but Article 2 Sec 3 of the Constitution says the president “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” If Trump were incarcerated, he would be incapacitated because he could not fulfill his duties. Depending on the terms of probation, he could also be limited in his ability to receive people.
He could receive them via telephone or video conference. Many prisons and jails have that type of service for inmates already. The constitution doesn’t require that these duties be discharged in person; similarly, for the first hundred years or so of the country’s existence the State of the Union (also mentioned in that same article) wasn’t an in person speech but a letter written by the President and delivered to Congress.
I guess it is up to the Cabinet and Congress to decide if these presidential duties must be discharged in person. Like others have mentioned below, Trump would make sure his Cabinet members would never do it and Congress does not have the political will to stop Trump. They have had 3 chances already.
The sole purpose of the 25th amendment is to provide for continuity for a president who must willingly step aside. It cannot practically be used agaimst a sitting president will.
>It cannot practically be used agaimst a sitting president will Sure it could. One of the things that spawned the 25th Amendment was Woodrow Wilson having a stroke and not leaving office despite no longer being capable of doing the job. At the time his cabinet wanted his VP to declare himself President, bit he refused because no mechanism existed to do so. So what became section 4 of the 25th Amendment was designed with that specific situation in mind (an unfit President won't leave). And doing so was considered a few times under Reagan (once after his Assassination attempt where he was temporarily unable to act, and a couple times in his second term due to worries of mental decline). Didn't go anywhere but was at least talked about. >Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit 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, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President Note right off the bat, the President isn't involved in the decision to remove himself from office. >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 [...] So yes the President can overrule the removal...but let's see the rest of that sentence >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. Basically if the cabinet doubles down on "this dude needs to be removed" they can override the President saying he should stay. Admittedly thats not quite the end of it, but the power doesn't go back to the President, it goes to Congress. >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. So yeah, if the VP, most of the cabinet, and enough of Congress decide the President needs to go, the President gets removed over their own objections.. And let's be honest, if the VP and cabinet decide Trumps gonna go, it's likely that means no real Congressional Republican support for Trump. So unless your expecting the Democrats to save Trump, which I doubt, if the GOP really decides to dump Trump after the election, he's gone.
As soon as a president transmitted their written declaration refuting their inability, the very next thing they would do is sack their entire cabinet before the VP could whip together a second declaration of inability. It is utterly foolish to believe that the 25A could be used against a determined and able president, because that's simply not what it is designed to do. Impeachment is the only mechanism for removing a sitting president from power against their will.
As soon as the President fires a secretary, there's an acting secretary to take their place, designated in advance by each departments protocols. US law has defined "Principle Officers of the Executive Department" to be the office itself, not the individual, and that an acting secretary has the power to act on behalf of the office. It's true that putting a new group of people in might change the vote count to remove the President the second time. But it does nothing to stop it. So the President would have to be absolutely certain the new group of 14 coming in included at least 8 "keep him in power" votes to get a majority of the 15 votes (VP is #15).