The Biden Administration and the 25th Amendment Dilemma
The current year under President Biden is starting to feel reminiscent of his previous attempts to sidestep the 25th Amendment, seemingly at any cost.
This situation has sparked significant interest among the public, Congress, and notably, the Justice Department during the Trump administration, particularly regarding the Autopen survey of monitoring projects.
President Trump didn’t hold back, stating emphatically that “The autopen is the biggest political scandal in American history!” He further emphasized that the 2020 election remains a hot topic, and, interestingly, I find myself somewhat agreeing, especially given my involvement in shedding light on the autopen matter.
Many Americans sensed that something was off with Joe Biden. Almost everyone, whether they wanted to admit it or not, had that nagging feeling. Some downplayed its importance, while others outright dismissed it, choosing to cling to a sense of uncertainty.
Yet, beyond that uneasy consensus lurked more profound questions. Who was truly steering the ship?
Early findings from the Autopen survey began to provide some clarity. When Biden confessed he hadn’t personally signed a crucial document that required the president’s signature, the implications resonated widely.
“Who was president over the last four years?” This is more than just a political jab; it strikes at the essence of constitutional legitimacy.
This situation transcended mere procedural shortcuts. It exposed a White House seemingly lacking a fully operational commander and being managed by others.
The repercussions of Biden’s time in office stretch well beyond misguided policies, casting a shadow over the United States on the global stage—not merely as a geopolitical entity but as a constitutional republic.
We often present ourselves as the pinnacle of democracy, even engaging in military interventions abroad to promote that ideal. However, what sort of credibility do we maintain if we disregard the fundamental principles outlined in our own constitution? Particularly if we operate under the guidance of a single individual who is, supposedly, the President?
Democrats voiced concerns about Trump’s potential threat to democracy. However, the more pressing danger may well stem from a president who appears ineffective, navigating a landscape controlled by an unaccountable and shadowy staff.
Following John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Congress sought to address similar uncertainties. The lawmakers recognized the necessity for a robust constitutional process to tackle scenarios like the incapacitation or death of a sitting president, stemming from the grim reality of four presidential assassinations in just a century. The existing system faltered with Garfield and faced significant challenges during Wilson’s stroke.
This led to the 25th Amendment’s ratification in 1967, establishing a legal framework to take action when a president can no longer perform their duties. Interestingly, this framework demands a written declaration from the Vice President and the Cabinet, affirming the president’s inability to fulfill their constitutional role.
What the creators of this amendment likely didn’t foresee was that the Vice President and Cabinet could neglect this responsibility—be it due to illness, political maneuvering, or some other reason.
So, why have Vice President Kamala Harris and Biden’s Cabinet seemingly eluded the constitutional process for four years? That’s a question begging for an answer.
Reports indicate that Biden was so isolated that even the Treasury Secretary struggled to gain access to him. How does a Cabinet member address the reality of being shut out from the president without sounding alarms?
The journey towards answering these pressing questions starts with, well, asking them.
As suggested by various surveys, the House and Senate need to subpoena Harris and Biden’s Cabinet to clarify why they opted against invoking the 25th Amendment.
Congress holds a responsibility not just to wield authority but also to seek answers. When matters directly inform legislative actions, their oversight capabilities peak. Moreover, no law supersedes constitutional amendments. If the 25th Amendment didn’t prevent this four-year charade, it might need reexamination. Perhaps the original drafters didn’t account for situations that could be labeled as “weekend Barneys.” The Constitution could, hypothetically, require a refresher.
“Who was in charge during the past four years?” This isn’t merely a rhetorical question; it underscores a constitutional legitimacy crisis. That inquiry now reverberates globally, exposing gaping flaws in our systems and demanding accountability.
The way forward hinges on complete transparency. Without a sudden admission from those in charge, it may fall to the Trump administration, with the support of Congress, to bring clarity to the issue.
When the federal government functions in opposition to its foundational principles for extended periods, it breeds scandal. More importantly, it breeds distrust. And this erosion of trust exists on a foundation that is already shaky—characterized by issues like compromised election integrity, rampant illegal immigration fostered by certain states aiming for political and demographic gains, and open experimentation with race- and gender-based preferential treatment, misleadingly termed “fair.”
All these factors converge towards a potential constitutional crisis. Without confronting it head-on, the outcomes threaten not just public trust but could escalate into much larger disasters.
