Chip Roy: Invoke 25th Amendment

Chip Roy on X ^ | 6/28/24

[hole_n_one]

I intend to put forth a resolution calling upon the @VP
to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize
the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the @POTUS
is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office.

[PeaRidge]

I was in a discussion about this issue earlier. Friend suggested that 25th removal outcome would be negative because of Kamala….and asked the question if Republican House could block removal, leaving him in office and subject to the election.

All predicated on premise that Biden does not resign.

[JohnBovenmyer]

If Harris refuses, the House should flex it power under 25th§4 to replace “the Principal officers of the Executive Departments” with “such other body as Congress may by law provide” to hold hearings on why the trigger hasn’t already been pulled.

[JohnBovenmyer]

you need 2/3 of each House to agree.

That's not what is written in 25th§4. Rather it says :

"Congress… determines by two-thirds vote [singular!] of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" which I'd interpret as one vote of all (potentially) 535 members in which case any combination of 178 Reps Senators could save Joe.

Currently Rats hold 213 seat seats in House, 49 in Senate plus 4 Senate incumbents who caucus with them. And there are 2 vacancies in the House (one each formerly from each party) so currently only takes 177 of his presumed 266 to save Joe from being replaced as POTATUS by Harris. Hard to imagine 89 Dems bailing on Joe, but if faced with landslide loss to Trump with coat tails...

[CA Conservative]

I would disagree with your interpretation of that clause, simply because there is no other instance in all of the Constitution where the votes of both houses of Congress are combined into a single vote total. Each house of Congress is unique, and I cannot imagine a case where the Senate would give up its power to the House. In your interpretation, you could have a case where less than half the Senate would vote to remove the President based on the 25th Amendment but could be overridden by a mere 18 or so extra votes in the House in favor.

[cgbg]

The amendment is poorly worded for sure—but there is probably similar language elsewhere that has been interpreted to mean two thirds of the House and then two thirds of the Senate.

Normally the House votes first—so if the two thirds was not obtained there no need for a Senate vote.

Sometimes there is lack of precision when it is assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that everyone “knows” how it is supposed to work.

[cgbg]

Imho the more important (implied) part of your post is that this amendment has never been invoked before so there may well be “bugs” that need to be worked out by litigation.

[cgbg]

Imho the more important (implied) part of your post is that this amendment has never been invoked before so there may well be “bugs” that need to be worked out by litigation.

[Political Junkie Too]

If Joe were removed by the 25A, it would be deeply embarrassing. Avoiding that might be the only thing to convince Jill Biden to give up power.

That's the odd quirk of the 25th amendment.

If Biden is set aside ("unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office") and Harris becomes "Acting President" in his place until Biden can "resume the powers and duties of his office," Jill Biden still gets to be the First Lady throughout it all.

Biden is not removed from the White House, it just becomes the most expensive nursing home in the nation while Harris gets to use his office during the daytime.

-PJ