11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Bryan L's avatar

Under the 25th section 4, Kamala would not become the actual President; she would be *Acting* President while Biden is sidelined during his disability. She would only become President, triggering a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, if Biden were to die or resign.

They're not invoking the 25th because only Kamala and a majority of the Cabinet can do that, and then Biden (aka Jill) would presumably object, and the 2/3 of both houses of Congress would have to agree with Kamala. Politically, that would look like a stab in the back from Kamala, and would probably tank the future careers of the Cabinet officers, and also they wouldn't have the votes in Congress.

Expand full comment
The Davidtollah's avatar

Correct. Kamala would become "acting president" and a new VP couldn't be installed, because the 25th Amendment allows for the return of the elected POTUS if his condition allows it (which would return Kamala to her regular VP duties). But while acting POTUS, Kamala couldn't possibly perform her legislative function as president of the Senate (because as acting POTUS she'd be firmly within the realm of the executive branch), and would be unavailable to perform any tie-breaking in the Senate.

Expand full comment
Tony Na's avatar

Strategically and tactically, the Dems are making a mistake. I would invoke 25th, to give Kamala Presidency, which would help her chances in the election. I don't want Kamala as President, but stating how it would be more effective for Dems.

However, the Dems are liars and cheats so they choose the path driven by fear.

Do we want People who lead from fear? I think not.

Expand full comment
Timothy Andrew Staples/pop122's avatar

Dang. I wish I'd read this better written explanation before trying to write it myself elsewhere, Davidtollah.

Well done!

Expand full comment
Bryan L's avatar

That's actually an open Constitutional question. The 25th section 4 says that the Acting President shall assume the duties of the President, but there's nothing that says they must give up the duties of the Vice President.

Expand full comment
Timothy Andrew Staples/pop122's avatar

Excellent analysis!

But I think, like warplans never survive the first battle, things unforseen/unthought-of will mess with the timeline!

Expand full comment
Kevin Beck's avatar

It's just like about 15 years ago when the Democrats tried to pass 0bamadoesntcare without a single Republican vote, and then Ted Kennedy died. They had to re-plan their political strategy to get it through.

Expand full comment
Timothy Andrew Staples/pop122's avatar

Ha. And didn't the idiot neocon McCain cast the single vote to save it at some point?

Expand full comment
Sandra Manzi's avatar

Thanks for the post, that put it in prospective,why they didn't really push for the 25th.

Expand full comment
Niny Lee Nine's avatar

SPeaker of the House becomes VP/

Expand full comment
The Davidtollah's avatar

The amendment doesn't say that. The speaker is in line after the VP to become president, but only if they are both lost at the same time. If a VP is lost while a POTUS is still in office, the POTUS appoints a new VP and the Senate confirms. See Lyndon Johnson/Hubert Humphrey & Spiro Agnew/Gerald Ford. The Speaker did not ascend to the VP position when that position was vacated in those situations. Under the amendment, the VP position isn't vacated as the VP is only acting POTUS and may return to that position if the elected POTUS overcomes the disability that caused his relief from duty.

Expand full comment