The 25th Amendment and Incentives

I agree with the editors of the Washington Post:

It now seems that, for a considerable time, Biden might have lacked the stamina and cognitive capacity the job demands — and that his family and closest aides concealed this from the public. Their apparent decision to put personal loyalties ahead of their duty to the country must be reckoned with. A legal mechanism should be considered to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

The people closest to Biden could hardly have avoided observing his infirmity — indeed, the actions they took to hide it indicate that they knew all too well. Early issues surfaced in the 2020 campaign, when he had memory lapses, including forgetting the name of one of his closest advisers and the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. A Democrat interviewed by Tapper and Thompson who was involved in making Zoom videos of Biden speaking to constituents during the pandemic lockdown said that, after watching hours of mostly unusable footage, they concluded he was incapable of doing the job.

Such observations then became more frequent. “Since at least 2022,” Tapper and Thompson write, “he has had moments where he cannot recall the names of top aides whom he sees every day. He can sometimes seem incoherent. He is increasingly prone to losing his train of thought.”

“By late 2023,” the authors say, “Biden’s staff was pushing as much of his schedule as possible to midday, when Biden was at his best.” Even in small groups, the president often read from notes or a teleprompter.

This suggests that Biden might have been too impaired to responsibly lead the United States. The country was fortunate not to have experienced a late-night crisis that he would have had trouble handling. It would be folly to count on such luck in the future.

concluding:

Ideally, Congress would create a sober, bipartisan commission to investigate ways to maintain transparency about the president’s health, mental and physical.

Perhaps some objective cognitive testing should be required, in addition to a physical examination, with the results made public annually.

Officials in both parties have a responsibility to enable their voters to select standard-bearers who are up to the job. In the case of the former president, top Democrats turned a blind eye to Biden’s limitations — until the debate made that problem impossible to ignore and activated their political survival instincts.

In a democracy, the voters, when selecting a commander in chief, need to be discerning, to elevate candidates who have the stamina and the smarts to serve. Four years later, they can assess that person’s ability to take on another term. If problems arise between elections, then White House officials and Congress must be counted on to act responsibly.

I question whether a “sober, bipartisan commission to investigate ways to maintain transparency about the president’s health” or “objective cognitive testing” are possible but they do raise some difficult questions about the events of the last year or so. Would President Biden have been elected at all had those been applied to candidates for the presidency in 2020? When did President Biden become incapable of handling the responsibilities of the presidency?

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution is:

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 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.

Note that there’s nothing about incentives there. It is assumed that the Vice President, “principal officers of the executive departments”, and members of the Congress are high-minded individuals, motivated exclusively by the law and the common good. While that’s something to which we should aspire, I doubt it has ever actually been the case. Furthermore, no consequences apply should they fail to exercise those responsibilities.

Time and old age eventually catch up to all of us. Together I think all of the above make a very good argument for setting an age limit on when an individual may run for president. I suggest 70. That would be clear and objective.