The Conundrum surrounding 25th Amendment

Reading Time: 4 minutes

In the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump supporters storming the US Capitol building, which houses both the US Senate as well as the House of Representatives, there are calls by many to either impeach President Trump or invoke the 25th Amendment

The lower house of the US Congress, the House of Representatives, will take up a goal to reprimand Donald Trump briefly during his administration, except if Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet summon the 25th Amendment this week to eliminate him from office, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on 11th January 2021.  With the new assault on the US Capitol by favorable to Trump dissidents, Pence is feeling the squeeze, alongside the cabinet, to conjure the 25th Amendment and eliminate Trump before his term terminates on 20 January 2021. 

While indictment is summoned when there is a maltreatment of force, the 25th Amendment, explicitly its Section 4, is called upon when a president is considered unequipped for doing the work in view of a disability. This is the reason it is likewise generally alluded to as the ‘Disability Clause’. 

The 25th Amendment is often considered as the hallmark of a Presidential democracy to avoid the misuse of power, intentionally as well as unintentionally. Unlike a parliamentary democracy in India, where the Prime Minister is obligated to resign after the ruling party loses its majority in the Parliament, the Presidential democracy does not make this obligation. This is usually attributed to the fact that a President is elected directly by the people unlike the Prime minister. Moreover the executive power in the hands of the Prime Minister is much less than that of the President in a Presidential Democracy. Donald Trump, here, possesses a veto that override a legislation passed by the House as well as ratified by the senate. The power of executive orders can be further exaggerated to nullify the effect of statues. Unlike ordinances, in the Indian Parliamentary system, executive orders do not have a specific timeframe of operation.

Coming back to the 25 Amendment of the US constitution, a close reading reveals that Section 4 can strip a leader of their forces temporarily because the person in question “can’t release the forces and obligations of their office”, making the VP the acting president. Be that as it may, there are a few ambiguities with regards to what occurs if the president pronounces oneself capable. In contrast to the next three sections under the 25th Amendment, Section 4 has never been summoned in US history.  Adopted in 1967, the 25th Amendment spreads out arrangements for official progression in the event that a sitting president kicks the bucket, leaves, or is taken out of office, or can’t satisfy her/his obligations. The revision came in light of the death of President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. 

There are four segments under the 25th Amendment. The primary segment expresses that if a president bites the dust, is going through clinical treatment, or is crippled, the VP takes over as the president. On the off chance that the president leaves, at that point the VP accepts office forever till the finish of term. 

The subsequent section expresses that if the VP’s office becomes empty, an individual assigned by the president, with a two-third vote in the two Houses of Congress, will be designated. 

The third section empowers the president to pronounce herself or herself “incapable to release the forces and obligations of their office” in a letter routed to the heads of the two Houses, presently Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley in the Senate and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Ambiguities under Section 4 of 25th Amendment 

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment expresses that in the event that a president is unequipped for pronouncing their ineptitude, at that point the VP, alongside the cabinet, can keep in touch with heads of the two Houses, announcing the president unequipped for completing their capacities and obligations. The president at that point stops to have authority with quick impact, and the VP turns into the acting president. 

In any case, the part likewise expresses that a president can keep in touch with the heads of the House and the Senate saying that no such failure exists. The president will continue their forces, except if the VP and the cabinet keep in touch with the heads of the two Houses inside four days repeating the president’s failure. After this, the case goes to the US Congress for goal and they should choose the issue inside 21 days by means of a two-third dominant vote in the two Houses. There have, in any case, been clashing understandings of what the law states about the four-day holding up period that follows once a president pronounces himself or herself competent. As per Richard Kay, a  Wallace Stevens Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Connecticut, the president retakes influence promptly after proclaiming himself capable. 

Nonetheless, Brian C. Kalt, a  researcher and educator of law at Michigan State University, has contended that the VP stays the acting president during the four-day time frame. 

Moreover, if the VP and the cabinet re-pronounce the president’s failure, the VP stays in force as the Congress ponders the debate. Kalt additionally called attention to a potential “danger” if the president quickly retakes power. “The president could endeavor to fire the Cabinet, to keep it from re-announcing his powerlessness and sending the case to Congress.” 

In addition, there is no lucidity on whether the VP and the cabinet can deliberately move power back to the president in under four days.

It is curious to note whether such a drastic measure can be taken in the spare days ahead, keeping in mind and following due process of the law.

Arushi Prasad- Writer Bharat Bhagya Vidhata

Categories: Articles

Tagged as:

Leave a Reply