3 Whisky Happy HourThe Ricochet PodcastGLoP CultureBeyond the Polls with Henry OlsenParsing Immigration PolicyFederalist Radio HourWhat the Hell Is Going OnFreedom to LearnDaily SignalThe Erick Erickson ShowChicks on The Right3 Martini LunchThe Learning CurveThe Conservative Woman’s GuideHeritage ExplainsNot Dead YetGiving VenturesWho Funds that?The Radio Free Hillsdale HourThe Glenn ShowFirst Things PodcastCall Me Back - with Dan SenorHillsdale DialoguesLaw Talk with Epstein, Yoo & CookeThe LibertarianThe Report Card with Nat MalkusThe Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’ConnorThe American IdeaMadison’s NotesConservative Crossroads with Henry OlsenMom WarsThe Back of the BookGray MattersMartini ShotThe Dave Carter ShowThe Powerline ShowIn DissentHeard at HeritageSmart Girl PoliticsJames Lileks’ The DinerCase in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and CultureJobMakersOne on One with Robert DoarHomeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeHubwonk

Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

  1. Main Feed/
  2. The 25th Amendment
February 11, 2024 at 4:00 PM

The 25th Amendment

She
@She

CHARTER MEMBER

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Join to bookmark23likesJoin to like42comments

Well. I've made a few comments on a few posts recently that I don't think the Democrat party wants to remove a senile Joe Biden at the immediate moment, because that will automatically elevate Kamala Harris to the Acting Presidency. (In the unwelcome matter of Biden's death or declared permanent incapacity, she'd become the President, with no modifier.)

And that I think, once either of those things happens, shunting the first Black, Female, Acting/President aside for another more appealing candidate (let's be clear, that's a pretty big field, one which may even include the loathsome Gavin Newsom), will be a very heavy lift, if not nigh impossible. And in a Trump-Harris showdown, I think Trump would win, hands down, and I think the Democrats know this.

So I don't expect--absent a complete Biden meltdown--any shenanigans until the convention, and--perhaps--not even then, if Joe is still staggering along. (Although all bets as to his running mate might be off by then, for perhaps obvious reasons.)

Today, February 10, 2024, is the 57th anniversary of the ratification of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, which took place on February 10, 1967. (Please tell me I've done the math right this time.) It took less than two years for the required 38 states to ratify it once it was introduced in July, 1965 (ditto), after the Kennedy assassination, and when an evolving understanding that the definition of "disability" was more fluid than it had been in years gone by, due to advances in science indicating that incapacity due to a specific medical condition might last much longer than had been traditionally expected, and also might include previously very unlikely recovery.

If anything of moment is to happen WRT Joe Biden's position as President between now and the end of 2024, the 25th Amendment will be the controlling authority for it.

Perhaps it's worth a read:

Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4
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.

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.

It's a pretty tangled web. The most controversial part, Section 4, has never been invoked, although there's occasionally been some yammering about whether it should be: Reagan (dementia), Trump (insurrection), etc.

Since the 25th, there have been two more Constitutional Amendments. The 26th lowered the voting age to 18, and the 27th blocks members of Congress from voting themselves a raise in the current session until the next election in the House of Representatives has taken place.

That last one is notable for having been first introduced in 1789, but not ratified until 1992. Two-hundred-three years. (No one told me there would be all this math. Never my strong suit.)

Lord. I hope that's not giving oxygen to the Equal Rights Amendment which--so far--has only been waiting 101 years for ratification.

I guess all we can do is cross our fingers, indulge in watchful waiting, and see how things pan out.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (42)

Sign in to commentSign in
  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens·2y

    ERA had a clause to cause it to expire.

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Percival@Percival·2y
    ReplyingtoBryan G. Stephens

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ERA had a clause to cause it to expire.

    I recall hearing that the sunset clauses were meant to keep little nuggets from the 18th Century such as the 27th Amendment from popping up in the here-and-now.

  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens·2y
    ReplyingtoPercival

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ERA had a clause to cause it to expire.

    Percival (View Comment):

    I recall hearing that the sunset clauses were meant to keep little nuggets from the 18th Century such as the 27th Amendment from popping up in the here-and-now.

    It has also been later rescinded by some States

  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    She@She·2y
    ReplyingtoBryan G. Stephens

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ERA had a clause to cause it to expire.

    I don't think the advocates are quite done with it yet. Even though only 35 states ratified it before the deadline, Nevada, Illinois and Virginia have ratified it since, bringing the total to the required 38.

    A few months after it was introduced in January 2023, the resolution to remove the deadline failed on a 51-47 vote, nine votes shy of the 60 vote total required to pass the ERA into law.

    I expect them to keep trying.

  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens·2y
    ReplyingtoShe

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ERA had a clause to cause it to expire.

    She (View Comment):

    I don’t think the advocates are quite done with it yet. Even though only 35 states ratified it before the deadline, Nevada, Illinois and Virginia have ratified it since, bringing the total to the required 38.

    A few months after it was introduced in January 2023, the resolution to remove the deadline failed on a 51-47 vote, nine votes shy of the 60 vote total required to pass the ERA into law.

    I expect them to keep trying.

    I know that, but it is not supported by a supermajority of states. I do know states have unratified it.

Scroll for later comments
+37 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 42 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.

Trending

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Join Ricochet

Get the Ricochet app

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
  • •
  • •