Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"incapacitated"
I've put and  tags on the word "incapacitated" in the Section 4: Declaration by vice president and cabinet members of president's inability section of this article, because the word does not occur in the amendment and is never substantiated anywhere in this wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources, and in particular the scholarly sources, freely use the words incapacity/incapacitated/incapacitation etc. as synonyms for unable and inability, and this is in keeping with the ordinary meaning of these words. Honestly, I don't see what the concern is. EEng 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO says the same thing as  but with more words, "incapacitated" and "unable" being synonyms. Levivich harass/hound 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A gear seems to have slipped in that usually steel-trap brain of yours. If we do what you appear to be suggesting, we'd have
 * Section 4 addresses the case of a president who is unable or unwilling to execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section 3.
 * Well, a normal, fully able president would be unwilling to execute the Section 3 declaration, and that's as it should be. That's not one of Sec 4's use cases, so I think we need incapacitated. EEng 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Feerick p. 117:
 * So Section 4 provides for two categories:
 * Physically unable (physical incapacitation)
 * By reason of mental disability, unable or unwilling (mental incapacitation)
 * A president who is partially but not totally physically incapacitated (e.g. conscious but confined to bed), and not mentally incapacitated, and thus is able, but not willing, to make a declaration, would not be one of Sec 4's use cases. In other words, not every incapacitated president who is not willing is covered: it has to be unwilling due to mental debility, and I don't think that is clear enough in the current language.
 * What about or something like that? Levivich harass/hound 04:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're like a used car salesman, you know. I came in arguing for fewer words, you've got me walking out arguing for more. Levivich harass/hound 04:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't really take legislative history like this on its face, because we need an authoritative source to tell us what specific stuff qualifies as legislative intent. Both Feerick and the Reader's Guide sometimes quote bits of debate as representing scholarly consensus, and sometimes just to show a range of opinion. But I think we can short-circuit this issue by looking to Feerick p115:
 * Section 4 covers the most difficult cases of inability--when the president cannot or does not declare his own inability.
 * It seems to me that the current text ...
 * Section 4 addresses the case of an incapacitated president who is unable or unwilling to execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section 3
 * ... paraphrases that just right assuming (a) we're past the incapacitated issue, and (b) we're OK with "unwilling" for "does not". (We could use some kind of "unable to, or fails to," locution, but I think that would be unnecessary and really awkward.) EEng 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... paraphrases that just right assuming (a) we're past the incapacitated issue, and (b) we're OK with "unwilling" for "does not". (We could use some kind of "unable to, or fails to," locution, but I think that would be unnecessary and really awkward.) EEng 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Including "incapacitated" implies that there is some status or test required to invoke Section 4, whereas the amendment itself is clear that it is the declaration by the VP et al which is the requirement, the actual status of the president is irrelevant, even in the case where the president transmits a counter declaration.
 * Similarly section 4 does not require that the president is "unable to execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section 3", a president fully able to do so could still be declared unable to discharge their office by the VP et al.
 * Wnjr (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think incapacitated implies there's a status or test required, any more than does unable, so let's put the issue of that choice of word aside by assuming, for the moment, that we say unable (the amendment's word) instead. So then there are your other points:
 * the amendment itself is clear that it is the declaration by the VP et al which is the requirement, the actual status of the president is irrelevant
 * section 4 does not require that the president is "unable to execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section 3", a president fully able to do so could still be declared unable
 * That's all true, but there's a difference between the amendment's procedures and the intent behind those procedures. The former are given in the amendment; the latter, as you note, are not, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and that's why we look to sources such as the one I quoted just above your post. That quote (by the guy who wrote the amendment) is explicit about what problem this section is meant to address. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, to address (I think) everyone's concerns, how about
 * Section 4 addresses the case of a president who cannot, or does not, execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section3.
 * That jettisons the whole incapacitated bit, and directly follows Feerick's word choices of cannot and does not (avoiding the connotations of unwilling). Can we all get on board with that? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. But I still think it would be better as or  I don't think we should omit the most important part of Section 4, which is that a Section 4 declaration is a declaration that the president is incapacitated ("unable to discharge the powers and duties"). Section 4 addresses the situation of a president who can't or won't make the voluntary declaration because of inability; omitting that part seems to leave the sentence incomplete. Levivich harass/hound 17:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you NEVER satisfied? OK, so how about
 * Section 4 addresses the case of an unable president who cannot, or does not, execute the voluntary declaration contemplated by Section 3
 * That satisfies your desire (with which I agree) that we get back the premise that the prez is unable (but this time using that word instead of incapacitated). However, I violently disagree with anything along the lines of president who, due to mental or physical incapacitation, cannot or does not execute, implying that the debility must not only make him unable to carry out his duties, but also that he won't declare because of that debility. I mean look, a president might know he's unable but refuse to declare just because he's a sociopathic criminal narcissist who puts his own needs above the country's. That seems impossible to believe, of course, and any president doing that would be far and away the worst president in history, but still the text needs to accommodate it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what Poff is saying, though ("when the President, by reason of mental debility[,] is unable or unwilling to make any rational decision, including particularly the decision to stand aside"): that the inability or unwillingness to stand aside must be by reason of debility, and not just, hypothetically speaking, run-of-the-mill sociopathic criminal narcissism? And to your earlier point, is Feerick quoting Poff here as an example of consensus, and Yale quotes Feerick quoting Poff in a footnote (too lazy to look up which one) saying the same thing (and including the "by reason of debility" language)? Levivich harass/hound 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I mean, it's Yale so consider the source. Beyond that, the key is to note that Yale introduces Poff's and others' statements with, "Indeed, while they listed a number of potential examples of presidential inability, the framers of the Amendment scrupulously avoided placing specific limits on the term." So we're back to where I said, Well, we can't really take legislative history like this on its face, because we need an authoritative source to tell us what specific stuff qualifies as legislative intent. What Congressmen said is primary, even if quoted by Yale or Feerick; Yale's and Feerick's expert evaluations, however, are secondary. If you look at the material I inserted in recent days about the scope of "inability", you'll see I scrupulously stuck to statements Yale and Feerick make in their own voice, except where I used examples drawn from others, which I labeled as examples illustrating something Yale/Feerick said. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you're absolutely right. I apologize for citing Yale. Levivich harass/hound 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the current ? I like it. Levivich harass/hound 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it approaches perfection. And now that I've removed a surplus comma, it's absolutely perfect. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I had forgotten about this conversation and EEng just re-pinged me. I'm fine with whatever wording matches the actual amendment and does not take liberties by using other words or interpretations. Either that, or the subsequent interpretations which use words and concepts different from the actual amendment need to be attributed and cited. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm not happy to see you, but I haven't pinged you in ages. I've noticed that sometimes old pings reemerge at random. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is truly peculiar. It was right near the top of my handful of notifs today, and the time (IIRC) appeared to be within the past 24 hours. It won't show me the the notif now, even if I click "show all", so something is definitely afoot. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Colonoscopies on parade
I wonder of there's some way we can soft-pedal the relentless catalog of presidential rectal exams. BTW, didn't Obama and Trump have colonoscopies? I mean, Trump's must have taken hours and hours, the man being such a giant asshole. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources for further article development

 * Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History: "articles written by Dean Feerick at the time of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s drafting; articles from three symposia at Fordham Law School, one on the vice presidency and two on the adequacy of the presidential succession system; and, the reports by Fordham Law School’s first and second Presidential Succession Clinics"
 * Yale Law School Rule of Law Clinic (2018). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: A Reader's Guide (already in article)
 * Feerick, John D. (2014). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History and Applications. Fordham University Press. ISBN 978-0-8232-5201-5 (already in article)
 * Presidential Disability Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Constitutional Provisions and Perspectives for Congress (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
 * Bayh, One Heartbeat Away
 * https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/twentyfifth_amendment_archive/ Huge amount of stuff
 * See external links

Ideas for further development

 * Inpopcult -- Freerick "complete" Ch.16; Readers guide p.4
 * ✅ Comments on importance of secn 2 to removing Nixon without, effectively, making House Speaker president: Bayh in Feerick p.xix, likely Freerick ch10 on Ford, maybe ch14 on congressional action; definitely Freerick p.255ff
 * McCormack's comments re private agreement during first LBJ administraiton, Feerick pp99-100 (cf. Nixon/Eisenhower -- and see Freerick chapter on history of presidential inability incidents)
 * ✅ Fix department singular/plural drafting error mention

25th amendment section four updates
RE: Recent Edits Regarding Biden's Debate Performance and 25th Amendment Discussions**

Hi everyone,

I've noticed that my recent edits about Joe Biden's performance in the 2024 presidential debate and subsequent discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment are being repeatedly deleted. I believe this information is relevant and well-cited from reliable sources, including the Washington Examiner ([source 1](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senator-calls-for-cabinet-to-consider-invoking-25th-amendment), [source 2](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-gop-calls-for-biden-removal-from-office-over-debate-performance)).

The debate performance raised significant public and political concerns about President Biden's cognitive abilities, which led to calls from some lawmakers to consider the 25th Amendment. This is a notable development and should be included in the article to provide a complete and balanced view of recent events.

I would appreciate it if we could discuss these changes here and reach a consensus. Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality means we should include all relevant information, regardless of political perspectives.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Best, 146.185.56.214 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, they would, wouldn’t they. It would be more noteworthy if hyper-partisan sources like that didn’t.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of press surrounding the president’s ability to fulfill the duties it is certainly relevant. While the words “25th amendment” haven’t been explicitly used across the board, the volume of non-partisan notables calling for him to resign (like Nate Silver’s comments saying he isn’t even fit to lead right now) are surely worth mentioning. 2601:540:C300:E150:18DB:5751:D3BC:71D0 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment on the removal was “Unsourced apart from the WE; if that section is going to be added, it should be with something more solid.” Perhaps citing the USA Today, Forbes, and Newsweek articles sharing the same information would help? 2601:540:C300:E150:18DB:5751:D3BC:71D0 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Calls to resign have nothing to do with the subject of this article. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 13:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Silver are literally talking about Biden being unable to complete the duties of the presidency. 2601:540:C300:E150:18DB:5751:D3BC:71D0 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ”Silver and others are”
 * 2601:540:C300:E150:18DB:5751:D3BC:71D0 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @2601:540:C300:E150:18DB:5751:D3BC:71D0 right, but Nate Silver's opinion doesn't really matter. This isn't an article about physical fitness for the US presidency or about Nate Silver, it's about the 25th Amendment specifically AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 14:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People are discussing whether Biden should continue to run for re-election, not whether he should be legally removed from power before then by the Cabinet. So it's an electoral politics issue, not a 25A issue.
 * Even if they were talking about that latter case (and I'm sure someone somewhere is), it would only matter if there was indication that those things were being discussed with/by the Cabinet officials who hold the power. Otherwise it's just random people's opinions. Lots of people have lots of opinions on lots of topics. Almost none of those go on those topics' Wikipedia pages AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 14:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)