By John Q. Hosedrinker 
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin has introduced legislation to establish a Commission on Presidential Capacity, intended to facilitate the use of the 25th Amendment. This commission, composed of medical professionals and former statespersons, would be empowered to determine if the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. The bill outlines a process where, if the commission and the Vice President agree on incapacitation, the Vice President would immediately assume the role of acting president. While unlikely to advance in the current Congress, this measure represents a renewed Democratic effort to address concerns regarding the president’s behavior and mental acuity.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump, at 79 years old, is now facing a concerted effort in Congress aimed at potentially invoking the 25th Amendment, a move that speaks to deep-seated concerns about his fitness for office. This congressional bid, spearheaded by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, has garnered support from 50 House Democrats, all sounding alarms about what they perceive as Trump’s erratic behavior. The legislation introduced establishes a Commission on Presidential Capacity, designed to specifically address the procedures outlined in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which deals with the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, declaring the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
The push to explore the 25th Amendment arises from a growing sentiment among some Democrats that previous actions, like impeachment proceedings, have not been sufficiently effective in holding Trump accountable. For a significant period, the refrain from some was a plea for Democrats to “do something, anything to at least get Rs on record.” Now, with this congressional bid, there’s a tangible effort to utilize a different constitutional mechanism, even if some view it with skepticism. The introduction of this bill represents a deliberate stand, signaling a desire to use every available means to address perceived unfitness for the presidency.
Despite the enthusiasm from some quarters, there’s a widespread acknowledgment that invoking the 25th Amendment faces formidable hurdles. The most significant of these is the requirement for the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to agree on the president’s inability to serve. Many observers point out that Trump’s cabinet members have historically shown immense loyalty, or at least a strong reluctance to openly challenge him, often described as wearing “Trump’s clown shoes to avoid his wrath.” This reliance on cabinet support, which seems unlikely given past behavior, presents a nearly insurmountable obstacle for the amendment’s activation.
Furthermore, the legislative path for such a significant action is fraught with political realities. For the 25th Amendment process to move forward, should the President contest the declaration of inability, it requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate to ultimately remove the president. This level of bipartisan agreement is seen as a distant dream, especially considering the deep partisan divides and the strong base of support Trump still commands among many Republicans. The sheer mathematical challenge of securing such broad consensus in a divided Congress leads many to believe this particular congressional bid, while perhaps symbolically important, is unlikely to succeed in its ultimate goal.
Adding to the skepticism is the perception that Trump possesses a Teflon-like quality, rendering him immune to traditional political consequences. The idea that “Dementia Don is made from teflon, nothing sticks” reflects a common sentiment that regardless of the perceived severity of his actions or statements, he often emerges unscathed in the public and political arena. This resilience, whether due to his loyal supporters or the nature of political discourse, makes many doubt the efficacy of any effort, including the 25th Amendment bid, to permanently remove him from power. The sentiment is often echoed with phrases like “Believe it when it’s fully in motion his ass on the way out the door,” highlighting a profound lack of faith in the immediate impact of such legislative efforts.
The mechanics of the 25th Amendment itself also present a point of confusion and debate regarding a congressional bid. Many correctly understand that the primary trigger for the 25th Amendment involves the Vice President and the cabinet, not directly Congress initiating the process. The question arises: “How does this even work? The 25th is triggered by the vice president and half of Trump’s cabinet before it ever gets to the senate of congress. What is a congressional bid going to prove?” While the introduced legislation aims to establish a commission that could *inform* such a declaration, the direct power to initiate the removal process under Section 4 does not rest solely with Congress. This procedural nuance leads to the conclusion that a purely “congressional bid” without cabinet buy-in might be seen as more of a symbolic gesture or an attempt to build political pressure rather than a direct pathway to invoking the amendment.
The current political climate, characterized by intense partisanship, further fuels doubts about the feasibility of the 25th Amendment route. Even as some express a strong desire for Trump’s removal, acknowledging that he “is unfit for office. Frankly he is unfit to do anything reasonable,” they also recognize the political realities. The idea that “They’re not gonna do shit. Just like always” is a recurring theme, reflecting a weariness with perceived inaction or ineffectiveness. Some argue that Democrats should strategically consider if removing Trump, even if successful, truly benefits their party, suggesting that “damaging the republican party as much as possible is what is best.” This pragmatic, if cynical, perspective underscores the complex political calculations at play, further diminishing the likelihood of the 25th Amendment being successfully invoked.