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
We’re asking the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.