The Democrats face a quandary of their own making. They nominated a man in 2020 who was clearly on the wane, mentally and physically. They did it not because he’d be good at the presidency but because they thought he could win or could be made to win. And win he did, whether by hook or by crook.
They also thought – or some of them thought – that his continuing decline could be covered up for enough time to figure out an alternative for 2024. The debate on June 27 changed that calculus, but the perception of Joe’s fitness had already been faltering. No number of better – not good, but better – “press conferences” or teleprompter speeches will undo what was seen at the debate.
It seems pretty clear that the majority of Democrats would like to remove Biden from contention, but he has stubbornly and egotistically refused to go voluntarily. That was part of the Democrats’ 2020 bargain, too: “stubborn” and “egotistical” are Joe’s two middle names.
And it’s not as though Joe is utterly senile. I’ve been saying for a long long time that although Joe is significantly cognitively compromised, he still has some agency and some say in things. As commenter Niketas Choniates writes:
To me it seems clear that Biden is VERY old and has good and bad days. However, he is not a vegetable, he knows he’s supposed to be President and is officially at the head of the Executive. He also knows it’s the capstone of a long career in office.
He will not resign and he will not be removed by Amendment 25, because he’s competent enough to successfully challenge using the Amendment 25 process (which folks should get really get around to reading for themselves, because media is not truthfully representing it).
I think the only way he leaves the Presidency is feet first–he won’t be voted out because Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are fortified for democracy. A successful Amendment 25 removal would only happen if he really were a vegetable, or so senile that he actually doesn’t remember he’s President even on good days.
(If they tried to remove him in the “vegetable” scenario, I’m assuming that his staff and or his wife would produce a letter under his name challenging his inability, and Congress would insist on seeing and interacting with Joe Biden in person before voting whether to restore his powers, which would mean something like a month of no one knowing who has the powers of the Presidency.)
So let’s look at the relevant portion of the 25th Amendment:
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 [sic][note 2][7] 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.
That’s a mouthful. The article goes on to add that the drafters of the amendment deliberately left the definition of “inability” vague:
… [There is] no specific threshold – medical or otherwise – for the “inability” contemplated in Section 4. The framers specifically rejected any definition of the term, prioritizing flexibility. Those implementing Section 4 should focus on whether – in an objective sense taking all of the circumstances into account – the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office. The amendment does not require that any particular type or amount of evidence be submitted to determine that the President is unable to perform his duties. While the framers did imagine that medical evidence would be helpful to the determination of whether the President is unable, neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for a determination of inability … To be sure, foremost in [the minds of the framers] was a physical or mental impairment. But the text of Section 4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies …
It seems to me that, if enough Democrats were to come along, the 25th could be invoked to remove Joe despite his protests and/or challenges. But it would be a very bitter and divisive experience for the Democrats.
