Under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, a U.S. President could be declared “disabled” and removed from office against his will by the Vice President acting together with a majority of the Cabinet.
A new report from the Congressional Research Service details the background and provisions of the amendment.
Proponents of the 25th amendment insisted that it was “not intended to facilitate the removal of an unpopular or failed President,” and that safeguards were in place to prevent abuse.
While Presidents have voluntarily and temporarily declared themselves disabled on three occasions — in 1985, 2002 and 2007 — the provisions for involuntary removal from office have never been implemented. See Presidential Disability Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Constitutional Provisions and Perspectives for Congress, November 5, 2018.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview, CRS Legal Sidebar, November 1, 2018
Internships, Fellowships, and Other Work Experience Opportunities in the Federal Government, updated November 1, 2018
U.S. Trade Policy Functions: Who Does What?, CRS In Focus, November 1, 2018
U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, updated November 2, 2018
The 2020 Decennial Census: Overview and Issues, CRS In Focus, October 31, 2018
Implementation of Treasury’s New Customer Due Diligence Rule: A Step Toward Beneficial Ownership Transparency?, CRS In Focus, October 31, 2018
U.S. Ground Forces Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS) and Artificial Intelligence (AI): Considerations for Congress, November 1, 2018
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.