Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Movies and TV

You forgot "Air Force One." 67.35.26.248 03:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Ambiguous Provision

I realize this is highly improbable, but what the hell.

Let's say the President has to go in for an emergency surgery, and the VP is elevated to acting president (either by a presidential declaration or a cabinet vote). Then let's say the president awakens in a mentally deficient state and signs a paper reinstating himself. If the VP and cabinet attempted to override this (as provided for in section 4), who would be recognized as president pending the vote by congress? The amendment doesn't make it clear which declaration would take precedence -- the President's or the cabinet's -- and 21 days would be a long time to go without an official President. Or is the whole point that there would be no President? Thoughts? 128.59.26.129 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When the President declares himself disabled he can get his powers back simply by declaring himself able (Section 3). Section 4 only applies when the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare the President disabled. SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Scenario

Reading section 4 of the 25th amendment, something struck me: what would happen if the Vice President died, and the President was incapacitated and unable to serve? Since section 4 begins "Whenever the Vice President and a majority..." and since it is the Vice President who becomes Acting President, the 25th amendment couldn't be invoked if there was no Vice President. And since only the President can nominate a new Vice President, and he is incapacitated in my hypothetical scenario...wouldn't there in effect be no president?

Ok, I'll answer my own question. In Article II, section 1, it states "... the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." Congress would have the power to choose an acting President.

In addition to the previous poster's answer, Congress has already enacted such a law (several times). The most recent, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), describes the chain of succession following the Vice President. At the moment, the next two are the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, in that order.

There's still the issue of how the President would be declared incapacitated. The 25th Amendment seems to suggest that only the VP and the Cabinet together can do so Nik42 05:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppose the VP had died and the President falls into a coma. You are correct that the 25th Amendment §4 does not expressly provide for this situation, and the Presidential Succession Act does not set out the procedure for how the President's disability would be formally determined such that the Speaker of the House (or others in the line of succession) would take on the role of Acting President. Despite that, if the President were actually in a coma it would not be that difficult to resolve the situation: presumably some procedure could be designed ad hoc. Similarly, if the President were to declare himself incapacitated, when the vice-presidency were vacant, then nobody would object to the Speaker of the House assuming the role of Acting President. This is exactly what happened on The West Wing. However, The West Wing was incorrect in depicting that situation as an invocation of the 25th Amendment. Legally, since the vice-presidency was vacant, the 25th Amendment had nothing to do with the procedure, since the 25th Amendment is silent on the procedure to be followed if the vice-presidency were vacant. A real constitutional crisis would arise if the vice-presidency were vacant and the President became apparently incapicitated while claiming to have no incapacity. For example, if he became mentally ill and delusional while still believing that he was healthy. That might spawn a constitutional crisis if the vice-presidency were vacant, because the 25th Amendment §4 does not apply with a vacant vice-presidency. The only real solution to the crisis would be for Congress to amend the President Succession Act to simply provide for some procedure whereby some body (perhaps the Cabinet) could determine whether the President is incapacitated if the vice-presidency is vacant. Congress has the authority to make this legislation under Art. II § 1 cl. 6 of the Constitution. The real question is, why hasn't Congress done that already? It is folly to wait for that situation to occur before providing the procedure for it. See Brown and Cinquegrana, "The Realities of Presidential Succession: 'The Emperor Has No Clones'" (1987), 75 Georgetown Law Journal 1389. --Mathew5000 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush Paranoid Schizophrenic?

What if Dr. Justin Frank's hypothesis that George W. Bush shows signs of paranoid schizophrenia are justified (book Bush on the Couch? (e.g. Bush is hearing voices telling him what to do, and inventing imaginary threats, and persecuting those who disagree etc.) Is the 25th Amendment the route to remove Bush from office as opposed to impeachment?

The 25th amendment does not remove a president from office. The wording allows for the transfer of presidential duties to the VP as 'acting president.' More over in the case of Bush, for him to be declared unfit under the 25th amendment would require Cheney and a majority of the Cabinet to agree. A doubtful situation. Impeachment does not remove a president from office either. Clinton was impeached; he was not removed from office. In the case of Bush congress could begin proceedings against him if they felt that he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors.83.52.128.158 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ambiguous provision

There should be a description of the "ambiguous provision" and why the 25th was created when it was. I'm assuming it had something to do with Kennedy's assassination. --Gbleem 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is already discussed in the article: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section one: Presidential vacancy. But I will edit to make it clearer.--Mathew5000 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest this same thing. The article as of today doesn't seem to explain why the amendment came to being in the 1960s. The article needs just a touch of historical background. --Mdchachi (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1987 Reagan incapacity

Presumably the concern about Reagan´s possible incapacity was due to early signs of his Alzheimer´s disease which was finally diagnosed in 1994, though not recognised in 1987? Should this be mentioned in this context? Shulgi 14:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The story doesn't make full sense. Even if White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker (& his staff) decided Reagan was unable to govern, only Reagan or Bush (with Cabinet backing), could invoke the 25th Amendment. GoodDay 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oath Required to Exercise Power? (Crazy Technicality Time!)

Say something catastrophic happens and the President is killed. Under Amendment 25, the VP becomes President, not the Acting President. Good so far. But what if the situation is such that executive decisions must be made, and they don't have time to find a notary or judge to administer the oath of office? I've been under the impression that the oath is required to exercise executive power, even if one actually is President by law. But that doesn't seem to make sense for practical reasons. Real world example: it's 10 minutes after JFK is pronounced dead, and LBJ, who is now the President but has yet to take the oath, sees fit to make a big executive decision. Is he allowed to before taking the oath? Does he have to wait until getting sworn in? Or is it technically not allowed, but that technicality would be ignored after the fact (and after the swearing-in)?

Even more out-there: what if LBJ in the example above gives an emergency executive order of some sort after succeeding but before being able to take the oath, but then LBJ is killed before ever being able to take the oath? Since he never was able to swear in, can anything he did during his short tenure as President be considered valid?

Hope that's coherent, Vbdrummer0 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution only specifies the text of the Presidential oath, not how it is to be taken. In your scenario the new President could simply quickly give himself the oath and that would suffice. SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Assassination Attempt

I know that this section is already flagged for lacking citations, but a wording issue wouldn't Bush have feared invoking the 25th amendment because it would constitute a de jure coup d'etat and not a de facto coup. Since the 25th Amendment is a legal avenue for assuming the duties of the presidency. Hence the coup if seen that way would have been 'de jure' as in 'by law' not 'de facto' as in 'in effect/reality.' Just a minor point.83.52.128.158 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Invocation of Section 4 of the Twenty fifth Amendment can not be any kind of coup d'état, unless such an invocation was for gaining the Presidential powers from a President who was fit for command. As long as those invoking Section 4 were doing so under a reasonable belief that the President was disabled, such invocation would be legitimate and certainly not a coup d'état. SMP0328. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion about what George H.W. Bush should've done

That just can't go in there. SMP0328, if you want to leave it in, find a source yourself. It's been tagged since February, and I'm sure it was in there, unsourced, for a while before then. I'm fine with leaving material in and tagged as needing citations if it's most likely true, and the only issue is that someone hasn't gotten around to providing a source. The sweeping comments about what a "nearly unanimous" group of "scholars" (who are they? what does nearly mean?) believe that Bush "should" have done is just an egregious violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and, really, I'd throw in WP:BLP, too, since it is unsourced and serves to cast Bush in a negative light. Croctotheface (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced that unsourced material with a sourced sentence referring to Birch Bayh, author of the amendment, saying that Section 4 should have been invoked. SMP0328. (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Croctotheface (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the amendment

Nowhere in the article is there a history of how the amendment came to pass, i.e., what event(s) prompted it (Kennedy's assassination?), its relevance to previous incidents (such as previous presidents who died in office with unclear orders of succession), etc. Can anyone shed light on this? Would it be an appropriate section to add to the article? Esprix (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is this section. If you want to expand it, by adding relevant and sourced material, feel free to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Abrams views

Somebody forgot to tell Abrams that the Vice President of the USA is the President of the US Senate (see his quote). GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A Relevant Hypothetical

With the recent inauguration of President Obama, I thought this hypothetical would be worth discussing:

In the event that during the inauguration ceremonies, after the Vice President is sworn in, but before the President-Elect becomes president, the President-Elect is assassinated or incapacitated, would the newly sworn-in VP become Acting President, or would the previous President retain his/her powers?

The fact that the President's term expires at high noon is of course a factor, but considering that, if his/her term expired, and no new President has yet been sworn in, there is technically no President, what would be the course of action from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.241.56 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a great question. Does anyone have an answer (this is saksjn, i need to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.226.123 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once noon of January 20 came, Barack Obama became President (see Section 1 of the Twentieth Amendment). Once that happened, if President Obama died, then Vice President Biden would have become President pursuant to Section 1 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. If the death occurred before noon of January 20, but after the Electoral College had voted, then Vice President-elect Biden would have become President at noon of January 20 pursuant to the first sentence of Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment. If the President was merely incapacitated, then Biden would have become Acting President pursuant to one of the following Constitutional provisions (depending on the circumstances): Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment; Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment; or Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article revision

I have made major changes to the article:

• I have moved to Background section material dealing with the proposal which became the Twenty-fifth Amendment and with a very different, but seriously considered, proposal.

• I have removed the texts of earlier versions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Such texts aren't necessary to the article and the differences among them weren't explained. The choice was between providing explanations of the differences or removing those texts. I felt the latter was better.

• I moved the Proposal and ratification section up so that it now comes immediately after the Background section.

• I have merged the sections covering the provisions of the amendment into a single section (Effect)

• I have removed the In popular culture section for being trivia. That material doesn't belong in this article, although it might be proper in another article.

These are the major changes to the article; there are minor changes as well. I believe these revisions provide better continuity to the article. It is now in chronological order. Please don't be alarmed by the drastic decrease in article size. That decrease comes almost exclusively from the removal of the texts of earlier versions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GAC

This isn't a review, more some general comments; if you want any chance at GAC you'll need a lot more references and a longer lead. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you feel should be added to the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, I can't think of anything, I'm sorry; it just seems far too short for an article of that size. The referencing thing is the main one, of course; right now it wouldn't qualify as B-class, imo. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

President Reagan's apparent mental difficulties

It would not be tasteful to add that President Reagan would later be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, which sometimes in its early stages presents as described in the article. However, I'm afraid it would be accurate. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Baker invoke section 4?

Not sure how to do it, but it should be noted that Howard Baker (as WH chief of staff) had no authority to invoke Section 4. Only the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet can do so. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That reference in the article is to Baker investigating whether President Reagan was fit. No reference is made to Baker being part of any potential invocation of Section 4. SMP0328. (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nixon's resignation

I read that Nixon addressed his letter of resignation to the secretary of state, Kissinger, while he actually should have addressed it to the "President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives", in accordance with the 25th amendment. If that's true it should probably be mentioned in the article. Here is the reference: http://starship.python.net/crew/manus/Presidents/faq/nixon.html Wikiation (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which deals with the President transferring his authority to the Vice President. A President's resignation is covered by Section 1 of the amendment. Federal law requires an executive branch resignation to be in writing and sent to the Secretary of State. That's why Nixon sent his resignation letter to Kissinger. SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707130813/http://www.amendment25.com/invocations.html to http://www.amendment25.com/invocations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota

This news article says that North Dakota voted to ratify the amendment but that it was ruled invalid by state officials. Apparently, they stopped their ratification efforts after the amendment was declared ratified. Do you think this is notable enough to include in the article? Libertybison (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I added your link to the Proposal and ratification section of the article as a source explaining North Dakota not ratifying the amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are the party affiliations of Keating and Kefauver NOT relevant to this article?

User:SMP0328. reverted my addition of party affiliation for both Keating and Kefauver, claiming, "Party affiliation is irrelevant for this article."

I accept that as User:SMP0328.'s opinion. However, my simple additions of (R) for Keating and (D) for Kefauver were not wrong. I added them, because they seemed to me to be relevant to the article. I wanted to know if the amendment had bi-partisan support. Without the 6 characters I added, it's not clear whether it was this was a bi-partisan effort or not.

As a counter-example, the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution suggests that the Republicans were not happy that Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms, and "Soon after his death, Republicans in Congress began the work of creating Amendment XXII" so no other president could serve more than two terms. It would be interesting to know how much support the Twenty-second amendment had among Democrats; that's absent from that article.

Help:Reverting says, "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. ... Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the actions of another editor. In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism or uncontroversially disruptive changes, the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes."

User:SMP0328.'s reason for the reversion was NOT on the article's talk page and did NOT include a "convincing politely-worded explanation".

I plan to revert this reversion. If User:SMP0328. wishes to revert this as well, I hope s/he will provide a more convincing rationale as to why it's not relevant -- and why that perspective should dominate mine. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how my edit summary was not polite. I didn't insult you or claim that your edit was in bad faith. As for the party affiliations, the part of the article you changed deal with an alternate proposal to what became the Twenty-fifth Amendment, so your changes don't show bipartisanship regarding the Twenty-fifth Amendment's adoption. Regarding bipartisanship, a simple sentence that there was bipartisan support for the amendment would be clearer than individual party affiliations. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to add such a simple sentence? You probably know this issue much better than I do.

Are you saying that the actual 25th Amendment was substantially different from what Keating and Kefauver drafted? That may be clear if I read the entire article. Like many people, I skim a lot of material.

It's common in similar articles to document party affiliations like I did. Including (R) and (D) with the key authors provides, in my judgment, documentation that is easier to find and digest than a sentence somewhere saying the bill was bi-partisan -- while also clarifying which of the lead authors belonged to which party.

Before I revert something that's not obvious vandalism, I virtually always explain why on the talk page, consistent with Help:Reverting.

Thanks for your reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Many articles include party affiliation like I attempted to add.

Could you please cite some credible source explaining why my additions are inappropriate -- or restore (R) and (D), as I had them.

This is not a question of right or wrong: It's an issue of style. If you are going to revert something on a question of style, please cite a style guide that explains why your style is preferred. I looked and could not find anything relevant beyond Help:Reverting, which you insist on violating.

Your words may be very polite, but your actions amount to an insult. You may not see it that way, but how would you react if I were to do the same to you?

I repeat: Please cite a credible source explaining why my additions are inappropriate -- or restore (R) and (D), as I had them. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Keating-Kefeauver proposal was an alternative to the Bayh-Cellar proposal. I have removed individual party affiliation, but added that the Bayh-Cellar proposal had bipartisan support.[1] SMP0328. (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please modify the article two make the two alternatives more obvious? Maybe start the background with a quick overview saying very briefly what I just got from you. Something like the following: "There were two proposals for providing those guidelines. The first authored by Keating (R) and Kefauver (D) documented the core of the debate on this before the Kennedy assassination. The assassination raised the visibility and urgency of the issue, and enabled Sen. Birch Bayh (D) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D) to obtain a bipartisan consensus on the language that was finally approved." I could make this change myself, but I get the sense that you know this issue much better than I do, and the result would likely be better if you did it.

An intro like this is important, because no author can expect every reader to read and understand every word. It's important to write so the typical reader can quickly find most of what they would likely want -- and decide from that whether they want to read the rest of the article.

Secondly, in saying that "Party affiliation is irrelevant for this article", are you saying it SHOULD be irrelevant or that FEW readers will WANT TO KNOW the party affiliation? I will discuss these two issues separately.

• WHAT SHOULD BE IRRELEVANT: The Post-truth politics that dominate the US today translates, in my judgment, into a grossly dysfunctional system where political party affiliation matters far more than it should. Some Conservatives believe that Wikipedia "tends to project a liberal—and, in some cases, even socialist, Communist, and Nazi-sympathising—worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality." The Conservative National Review insists that university professors are as a class liberal effete snobs that reject their reality essentially, because it contradicts their religion. There is another interpretation: Conservatives cannot be persuaded by evidence, required for promotion in academia. In this tragic post-truth reality, I believe it's important to provide the information people need to survive in this reality.
• WHAT READERS WANT TO KNOW: I don't have a convenient citation for this, but I believe that Wikipedia readers -- at least in the US -- live in the reality created by these Post-truth politics. Moreover, I believe that most readers want to know this party affiliation.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the question of whether party affiliations should be included. On the one hand, this does not seem to be a partisan issue where the two main parties held different opinions on the topic, so the affiliation of individuals seems less important. If a reader wants to know, the information is just a click away. On the other hand, I can appreciate the relevance of including party affiliations for the completeness of the encyclopedia article.

I am more concerned about how it is included, if it is decided that it should be included. To me, adding an (R) or a (D) after a person's name looks like a short-hand device to save space, appropriate for a newspaper or a caption on the bottom of a television screen. I believe such short hand should be avoided when providing the information in an encyclopedic article. Party names are not mentioned anywhere else, so without prior knowledge a bare "(D)" has no meaning. Bearing in mind that not every reader will be familiar with American political parties, it should really be put into prose, e.g. "Senator Kenneth Keating, a Republican Party senator for New York,". This is the type of prose I would expect to see. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211012558/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103161758/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/faqs/succession/succession63.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/faqs/succession/succession63.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

President Trump

The NYT published an article yesterday about this subject. Here are excepts:

After the president boasted that his “nuclear button” was bigger than Kim Jong-un’s in North Korea, Richard W. Painter, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, described the claim as proof that Mr. Trump is “psychologically unfit” and should have his powers transferred to Vice President Mike Pence under the Constitution’s 25th Amendment....Fifty-seven House Democrats have sponsored a bill to form an oversight commission on presidential capacity. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, permits a president’s powers to be transferred to the vice president when the vice president and a majority of the cabinet or a body created by Congress conclude that the president is incapable of performing his duties. Congress has never created such a body....“The 25th Amendment was passed in the nuclear age, and we have to keep faith with its central premise, which is there is a difference between capacity in a president and incapacity,” said Mr. Raskin [D-MD]. “We haven’t been forced to look at that question seriously before and now we are.”

Is it premature to include stuff about this here in this WP article? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this type of news story should not be in this article, unless there is confirmed consideration of invoking Section 4 by people in the Trump Administration. For examples, see this part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been discussed not only in the New York Times, at least twice (May 16, 2017), but also the Newyorker (January 5, 2017), Salon.com (Jan 25, 2017), Rachel Maddow Show and The Last Word (Feb 21, 2017) and a column by Keith Olbermann (Nov 23 2016). This is way more consideration than any president has had since Reagan. There are reports that Bannon warned Trump about the 25th amendment(OCT 12, 2017) --1Veertje (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The consideration in Reagan's case was by those who the amendment authorizes to officially determine if the President is disabled (i.e., the VP and Cabinet). Also, many sources fundamentally misdescribed the amendment. The 25A does not remove anyone from office. If Section 4 of the 25A was invoked, VP Pence would become Acting President (i.e., temporarily possess the Presidential powers without occupying the office). Donald Trump would still be President, although without any powers. Section 4 provides how the President can get his powers back. Removing President Trump from office would involve the impeachment process, not the Twenty-fifth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's been raised enough in the media for it to be included. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been raised by people who hate his guts. It's the equivalent of the birther movement (i.e., fringe theory). SMP0328. (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bannon warned Trump about the 25th amendment 1Veertje (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

it's also a big part of the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. 1Veertje (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Those doctors violated the Goldwater rule, because they did not directly exam Trump. That book may be appropriate for any of the Trump articles, but not for this article. This article is about the amendment, not Donald Trump. SMP0328. (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That Yale psychologists have published this book and held conferences on Trump's sanity despite the Goldwater rule shows that this isn't a fringe theory and should be included in the article. It's quite a catch 22 you put up that criticism should only be included when it comes from supporters. People tend to not support presidents that qualify for the 25th amendment. 1Veertje (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Those psychologists never examined Trump, so how can they know his mental state? The book boils down to their speculating about Trump's psychiatric state. That's not reliable. There is no evidence that Vice President Pence or any of the Cabinet officers is considering trying to get Section 4 of the 25A invoked. If that changes, a reference of such consideration should be included in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory, it should be included in the article. The president has made plenty of statements in public that makes one doubt his mental fitnes for the presidency. The 10x increase in nuclear arms comes to mind. 1Veertje (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a policy disagreement. Trump's policy regarding nuclear arms is not a sign of mental instability. It may be a bad policy, but a person can be mentally fit while making a bad decision. I'm concerned that a Trump section here would be improperly focused on a negative assessment of Trump. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

He regularly has blow outs om Twitter and isn't concerned about the concequences of using nuclear aggression. I don't feel save knowing he has the nuclear codes and I'm not the only one. I'm not saying it isn't hard to add a paragraph about this, I'm fully aware of this. That something is hard is not a valid reason though. It's not a fringe theory and should be included in the article. 1Veertje (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at statistics to this article. There has been trafic since Trump got elected like never before. There is a discussion about this and it's prudent to link to the article about his health and about the book. 1Veertje (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You've added a criticism section. That is something that should be avoided. There is nothing suggesting that anyone in the Trump administration is advocating invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment. There are many people who are advocating for invoking Section 4 of 25A and for impeaching President Trump. Are we going to add such advocacy to Impeachment in the United States? Such advocacy could be appropriate in a Trump article or in its own article. This article is about the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Trump should be mention only if one of three things happens: (1) Trump ceases to be in office before the end of this term, (2) Section 3 or 4 of the amendment is invoked, or (3) reliable sources confirm that people within the Trump administration are considering calling for the 25A being invoked. Until then, this article is not the appropriate place for the material at issue. SMP0328. (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a criticism section, it's a paragraph about the existence of a debate. If you were to actually read the article, there actually is a debate witI hin the white house itself as well. You are making up your own rules for inclusion and acting like you own the article. As Ivar the Boneful said: there have been more than enough media coverage for inclusion. Your point about impeachment is mute: there is a whole article about it. 1Veertje (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Will we add such calls regarding President Obama? Will we include material from those who think calls for invoking Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment against President Trump are a terrible idea? SMP0328. (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A blogpost on a political campaign site that links to an article in an non-notable publication that purposefully misinterprets "losing once voice" as a mental issue in a publication thas since ceased to be, that you count as media coverage? It clearly shows how biased you are that you think this is anywhere close to an equivalent. 1Veertje (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

could you quote a sentence that shows it is criticism? There isn't any in it. 1Veertje (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Should we include Donald Trump? No – Whether or not Trump might be subject to 25th Amendment removal is not the editing/encyclopedic question. The real issue is whether we are presenting an objective, non-POV article about the 25th Amendment to the reader. Once we say (according to whatever sources) that he is/might be so subject, then the counter-views (that he is not/might not) "should" be included. Hence any attempt to achieve BALANCE is doomed to disrupt the article. The debate as to his fitness is best confined to his article. Leave this article alone because it discusses the larger, historical issues – without bias or BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If Trump might be subject to the 25th amendement is part of the contemporainious debate, which is encyclopedic. You're asking for false balance. The debate to his fitness is contained in the article about the Health of Donald Trump, to which I link in the first sentence. I just don't think this article would be complete without a link from here to there when a ton of columnist have made this link. I link 6 so far, but a quick searchengine search still has more. The 25th isn't a well known Amendment and most columns spend most of their lenght explaining what it is, not infrequently in order to put context around the the Michael Wolff quote. 1Veertje (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"False balance" is not the issue. When WP engages in this sort of speculative writing, i.e., "he might be unstable", we are anchoring an argument against him just like he anchors against people he does not like. That is, Trump says "so-and-so is dumb, a looser, an idiot, etc." Or Trump presents some false information about a topic. No matter how absurd the statements become, every attempt to refute them only reinforces the public perception about the person or topic. In our case, the article topic is the 25th Amendment as a constitutional topic. The historical examples are concrete, not speculative. Discussing Trump is not a comparable situation. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete section – Speculation by outsiders on Trump's mental health and wishful thinking from his critics are totally undue in this article about the 25th amendment. Try again when something tangible happens. — JFG ^talk 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep section – The POTUS' competence has been frequently discussed by mainstream media and by politicians themselves, including within the President's own circle. E.g. the question whether Tillerson called the President a "moron" (suggesting the President's serious incompetence regarding the issue at hand) became a high-profile incident which was neither confirmed nor denied by Tillerson instead of flat-out denied. The question whether this supposed incompetence is enough to invoke the 25th amendment is also seriously considered, but dismissed by most as unrealistic. I added an example from the Washington Post, saying it's highyl unlikely to happen, despite often being talked about. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Mention, but reduce. I think that it is enough to have one paragraph saying that "political opponents of Trump have suggested that he should be removed under the Twenty-fifth Amendment", with perhaps a little detail on the specifics of these suggestions. I don't think that it merits broader treatment than that. bd2412 T 14:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

sorry JFG, I usually focus on accumulating good pictures for Wikipedia, not editing text, I'm trying my best here!

This is my rewrite

it kicks out all opinion makers by puting the timeline of this page's pageviews in context. Even the most conservative readers can see this and read "just hippies being panicky". I found this timeline on Time.com most pracitcal for puting things in line. 1Veertje (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of documenting how public interest in the 25th amendment followed some of Trump's provocative declarations, we can't use Wikipedia as a source, and we can't place WP:original research into articles. — JFG ^talk 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You're really not understanding "not using Wikipedia as a source" if you think our pageview statistics are unreliable. The content of Wikipedia can't be copy pasted into other pages without actually checking the source. This isn't content from within Wikipedia, this is data about Wikipedia: undisputed fact, as much fact as presidential approving ratings. If this qualifies as original research maybe we need more sources in the article about Van Gogh's sunflowers when they're described as yellow. 1Veertje (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You could cite data about Wikipedia if a third-party reliable source had commented on such data. What you are doing is textbook WP:OR. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This article, as it includes Trump, is POV Forking. (The rewrite, above, is not about the 25th Amendment and the Trump references are off-topic.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Observing reality is not a point of view, dispute Trump trying to make it so. 1Veertje (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are all capable of observing reality. But the concern is good editing and building an encyclopedia. Please look at WP:AADP. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You should also show respect to editors. SMP0328. (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You all should work on actually providing constructive criticism. As you can see I've put a lot of work into writing it just so that it simply shows the timeline of the debate, with ample sources as to substantiate why. 1Veertje (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody denies you worked hard on that material. The issue is whether that material belongs in this article. It is definitely a POV-fork, uses wiki-sources, and is a criticism section (the 25A claim is really a criticism of Trump's personality and governing style). There is no serious chance of the 25A being invoked against President Trump at this time and so the disputed material does not belong in this article. That is not to say that is does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It does not use wiki sources. I got the idea of creating a timeline after seeing The Rachel Maddow Show refference this tweet that is a screenshot of our pageviews. More commonly you see news outlets refferencing Google Trends spikes on the subject. This isn't unsourced content from within Wikipedia pages, this is as much reliable data as the presidential approval ratings. You know what was as redicoules as a snowball's chance in hell? The idea that Obama didn't have a US birth certificate. We still had to write about it. The birthers were nutters. In 2017 we had Jamie Raskin propose constitutional reform and Zoe Lofgren introduce a resolution about urging the application of the 25th. Ross Douthat writes in a respectable news outlet and had responses from many other respecable news outlets. This isn't fringe. I'd appreciate it if you could come upwith actual points in my text where you think there is room for improvement. I still am of two minds about including the refference about the Jon Cooper tweet, though there were a number of newsoutlets reporting about that tweet and it explains the data better. --1Veertje (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with those above who state that we can't cite Wikipedia page views without reference to third party reliable sources. If these page views have not received coverage in reliable sources, then we have no indication that third parties consider them to be of any significance. bd2412 T 12:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

did you not read what I wrote? I cite 3 sources specifically talking about the 25th amendment and Google Trends /Wikipedia pageviews (2 sources, coinciding results). I remember coming across at least one more and that's only when you limit yourself to this topic. There was unusually much engagement about the 25th amendment in the first year of the Trump presidency. This is the story of what caused that interest to spike backed up with citations to contemporaneous reports. There is nothing biased or OR about that. 1Veertje (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you show where Maddow referenced that tweet? The tweet itself is not from any sort of news organization. bd2412 T 13:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the link I linked at the top of the page here. Wikipedia data is way more fine grained than the Google Trends data: daily instead of weekly. It really helped in seperating out the wheat from the chaff since there was a sort of constant background noise of reporting about the amendment since Trump got elected. I also prefer focusing more on it than Google, a commercial entity.1Veertje (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tried keeping it as much big picture as possible. The Jamie Raskin amendment didn't do much in April as you can see but he managed to capture a bit of a spotlight after the first peak thereafter in July by sending out an email to his collegues.. The Vanity Fair piece also was the source of the "Rex called Trump a Moron" thing, but that was denied by him and not as directly linked to the 25th Amendment. On October 3rd the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump was also published, which advocates for application of the 25th in the last chapter. The spike doesn't start until October 12th though, making the book nog a direct causal agent. --1Veertje (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I'd say forget about it. bd2412 T 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

well, yeah, it's already very good and should be put up in the place of what's now on the article. It's the details I mentioned above that I'm concerned with. It's not an insignificant topic, this is an objective way of writing about it and claims of OR or "citing Wikipedia" are unfounded . 1Veertje (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The reference (in an article by lesser known Steve Benen, not Maddow herself), is very much in passing. There has been no actual progress on any proposal to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment here, so to me it just does not rise to the level of notability to merit inclusion in the article. References in the article to uses of the Amendment are presently focused on actual uses or actual considerations of use. bd2412 T 16:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The statistics are scaffolding that puts into perspective how much the discussion died down time and again and when it started up again. I've been able to back up links between peeks and media coverage at every point. Media coverage for this topic has been overwhelmingly higher than would be required for inclusion. How many of the amendments can say that they trended on Twitter? This is a significant part in the history of this amendment and should be included. 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, this is going nowhere. Perhaps it would be wiser to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no points! If you think this is criticism it is well within wp:due. It's not pov-forking: I didn't come up with the idea of linking these events to the 25th amendment: 32 sources say there were multiple reports of people doing so. It is not using Wikipedia as a source, it's using statistics about people using Wikipedia to illustrate a point. SMP0328 let his mask slip by making that demand for inclusion of nonexistent media coverage of people demanding the 25th be applied to Obama. It's not OR and you have no reason to cut this out of the history of the 25th amendment. 1Veertje (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I let my mask slip? You sound paranoid. It is clear you dislike Trump and so want this fringe theory added to this article. Your material violates WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and WP:POV. Also, at least one of sources incorrectly describes the Twenty-fifth Amendment; the President is not removed from office if Sections 3 or 4 the amendment is invoked. It is also clear that you will never admit any of this, even if you are capable of doing so. The disputed material should be removed from article immediately. SMP0328. (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the section per WP:TNT. No prejudice against adding some well-sourced, neutral comments regarding the discussions on whether President Trump may be targeted by the 25th amendment; any formulation would have to reach consensus on the talk page first. @1Veertje: Please stop inserting WP:OR in the article, as you were advised by several editors. If you persist, I will report you for vandalism. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

it's not OR, this is a description of what happened last year. Fringe theories don't get discussed in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Washington Post, US News, Slate,Salon.com, Vox, Brookings Institute, Wall Street Journal, CNN, msnbc, the Guardian, Daily Telegraph and the independent. I reliable sources in ample amount. As per wp:due I cite prominent adherents. You're grasping at straws if you think it is even slightly relevant that one of these sources isn't entirely right about the 25th, that's not the point. I added it to the article so that people would actually start working on the phrasing, since constructive feedback has been absent from you three. 1Veertje (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

rewrite rewrite

@JFG:, @BD2412:, @Srich32977: please take another look at the rewrite. As you can see, I've minimized references to pageviews to just the peak directly following the election, which is something the Miami Herald and Business Insider have refferenced as well. Business insider tried to do what I did, just with way less substantiation and without making references to what members of Congress have been up to. I'm not entirely satisfied with my summary of the response to Douthat's piece in NYT. responses were fairly numerous, which makes it hard to be concise. --1Veertje (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's best that we don't allow this article to turn into a sister-article of Donald Trump. Note: the mass media itself, keeps getting the 25th amendment's purpose wrong. They keep repeating that it removes the president from office, when in fact it only strips the president of his powers & duties. Furthermore, the media keeps forgetting that nothing happens concerning section #4, without the vice president's consent. GoodDay (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

pretending this isn't happening and acting like an ostrich isn't actually objective. 1Veertje (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this subsection is more than relevant for inclusion in this article by now. GoodDay, if you disagree with the media's representation of the 25th's purpose, that's not a reason to exclude 1Veertje's text, but to correct it if you think it follows that misrepresentation. In order to do so, you'll have to provide WP:RS to avoid WP:OR. I've re-read the text, and the only passage that comes close to suggesting that the 25th removes a president from office is "the Amendment as a possible way Donald Trump's presidency could end"; we could easily clear that up by adding "effectively" before "end" and you'll have the desired effect. I'll restore the text and add that word. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:EEng please give your opinion on the recent rewrite before reverting it. New developments in the past days necessitate a new review on the matter, which is more relevant than ever (I've added reliable sources to substantiate why). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that it violates WP:NOTNEWS (and that's for starters) and doesn't belong. Get consensus for including it before restoring it. EEng 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, in what way does it violate NOTNEWS? Are there parts which constitute Original reporting? News reports, perhaps? The text is certainly not a Who's who, nor a Diary (unless you're able to point out trivia in the text). If any of these can be found in the text that ought to be removed, I'm open to that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If Pence & the majority of the cabinet invoke Section #4 (which Trump would most likely oppose)? then, we can have something substantial added into this article. Right now, all we've got is sources of opinions from mainstream news media, some politicians & book authors. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Listen to yourself: how is it not notable that news media, politicians and book authors are talking about an amendment nobody had heard about before Trump became president. 1Veertje (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, my only hesitation is that I don't consider this infamous Op-Ed an RS for the idea that there was anything approaching serious consideration of invoking 25A. "Early whispers within the cabinet" is just too vague and indefinite. When there's hard reporting (a reputable journalist confirming through multiple sources) on this, then we can look at it again. I won't be surprised if that happens, just not yet.

And speak for yourself: I knew all about 25A long before this. In the old days school children took something called Civics and government. EEng 19:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the American Wikipedia, this is the English language Wikipedia. As the Miami Herald and Business Insider reflected: a whole lot of people started to Google the amendment once Trump got elected. If you look at the map in Google analytics you can see those people are from western Europe like me, India and Australia. That has never happened before. Slate also finds it notable that chatter about the amendment spiked on Facebook but that seems to be just that journalist's experience 1Veertje (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You said "nobody" had heard about the 25A before Trump became president. I had. And despite knowing what it is, I still googled to refresh my memory. Anyway, it's not a big deal. I was just correcting your hyperbole. EEng 23:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They're getting it wrong, though. They're describing Section #4 of the amendment in an incorrect way, thus misleading people. One need only read over the amendment to see that. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that the interpretation of all relevant notable people who talk about the 25th Amendment is 'wrong', is your personal opinion, thus WP:OR and irrelevant to the question whether or not Wikipedia should mention discussions on whether or not the 25th should be invoked during the current presidency. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the amendment over & figure it out for yourself, why the media etc gets it wrong. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Since Senator Elizabeth Warren has now suggested using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office, I think that it is worth adding a few sentences about it. Not more than a paragraph. Certainly not a lengthy analysis of what people were tweeting or googling or the like. bd2412 T 20:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Even Warren can't get it right. Again, the 25th amendment does not remove the president from office. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether she got it right. What matters is that a sitting U.S. Senator invoked the use of it. In any case, the Amendment can be used to remove the powers of the presidency from the office holder, whether they are technically removed from office or not. bd2412 T 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

We should wait a month, to see if a growing number of members of Congress push for the amendment to be invoked. Then, we can add to this article. Right now, we gotta be careful that this article doesn't suffer from WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM. -- GoodDay (talk)

I agree it takes more than just "suggesting" by someone not in a position to actually act on the suggestion, but on the other hand there's no reason to introduce some arbitrary time parameter such as a month. Whether or not someone gets the removed-vs.-neutered detail right is unimportant. EEng 21:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article is certainly a new element to this discussion. It being from an anonymous source means we don't know if it is true, but anonymity is understandable if the story is true. If this story is added to this article, it is imperative that the NYT incorrectly describes the Twenty-fifth Amendment. We may need to add a section or subsection with the misconception by the news media and others regarding the amendment's effect. SMP0328. (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't talk about a "misconception" unless there's significant coverage addressing the misconception itself in reliable sources. That some talk loosely about the president being removed from office, instead of merely disempowered, isn't really important at this point. If things actually get serious this point will be discussed to death as sure as day follows night. EEng 03:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as these news sources aren't getting it exactly right. That would render them somewhat unreliable. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the proposition that "news sources aren't getting it exactly right"? If the reporting in those sources is that far off, some news outlet should be reporting on the error. bd2412 T 04:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Everyone please stop harping about this. EEng 05:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This news article explains that Sections 3 and 4 do not remove a President from office. Any considered invocation of the 25A is very important and so the news media should correctly describe it, not merely "talk loosely" about it. SMP0328. (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Funny that the very article you cite as "correctly describing it" says that Section 4 "creates a mechanism for forcibly removing a president", which of course it doesn't. So you see, imprecise talk abounds. While it's important that our article correctly state exactly what happens, it's not necessary to fuss about it, because the distinction between removal and disempowerment is of little practical importance for our readers. EEng 06:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That is one mistake in that article, but the rest of the article correctly describes the 25A. The NYT article makes that mistake, but never correctly describes the 25A elsewhere. Did you read the entire article? SMP0328. (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I give up. EEng 06:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Who's in charge during the 4 days

Can we please capitalize consistently or not at all? Also, it's important to continually stress that the acting president is still vice president. Note that the Constitution uses all capitals in this case. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Like all serious publications, Wikipedia has its own style guidelines. While I may have missed something here and there, and it's certainly possible I've misinterpreted the guideline – I've posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:JOBTITLES – I believe that things as they stand follow MOS:JOBTITLES (except of course we don't tamper with direct quotations). And no, the article should not "continually stress" that the acting president is still Vice President, but simply state it once and move on. (And BTW, the capitalization in that sentence follows JOBTITLES.) EEng 15:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We disagree then, don't we. Which means that others will have to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree on what: capitalization, or "continually stressing that the acting president is still vice president"? If the latter, can you explain what the purpose of continual stress is? And where would we be stressing this? Why isn't it enough to just say what happens? EEng 15:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The four day period, between when the president reclaims his powers/duties & the vice president with the majority cabinet re-invokes section 4, he/she is not the acting president. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First your concern was "stressing that the acting president is still vice president"; now it's something about the four-day period. And your statement is incorrect: during the four-day period the vice president remains Acting President. EEng 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No he doesn't. When the president re-claims his powers & duties (see 1985, 2002 & 2007, concerning section 3) he immediately gets them, this is the same with section 4. The vp & majority of the cabinet has 4 days to re-invoke. Until they re-invoke, the president keeps his powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• What Section 4 says is Thereafter, when the President transmits... his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority [etc] transmit within four days...
• [2]: If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets...
• [3]: The Vice President continues as Acting President during the four-day waiting period, and the President does not take power back until it is over.
• [4]: If a second declaration of inability has not been properly transmitted at the end of those four days, the President resumes his powers and duties.
• [5]: The President may subsequently transmit a declaration [etc], whereupon he may resume the powers of his office, unless, within four days...
• [6]: In addition, the Conference Committee accepted the House version of section 3, permitting the President, in the event of a voluntary declaration of inability, to resume his powers and duties immediately upon transmitting his declaration of recovery... The Committee compromised on a four-day period within which the Vice President and Cabinet could challenge a President's declaration of recovery where the inability determination had not been made by the President... The President could announce his own recovery but he would then have to wait four days before resuming his powers and duties. (This source extensively cites the legislative history in support of this statement.)

So no, in fact Section 3 and Section 4 operate differently in regard to the immediate verus delayed effect of the president's declaration of ability. I think it's time you stopped saying that you know how the amendment operates and everyone else is wrong. EEng 17:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the opening of the second paragraph in Section 4 of the 25th amendment, please. In Section 4, when the president re-vokes the amendment, he resumes his powers & duties. He keeps the powers & duties until & if the VP & majority of the cabinet (within 4 days) re-invoke the amendment. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

During the four-day period the Vice President is Acting President. Section 4 says that the Vice President "continues" to be Acting President if the Congress rules in his favor, as opposed to the President being allowed to "resume" the discharge of the presidential powers and duties. This was provided repeatedly in the legislative history and there are plenty of sources. SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No he's not. Until the Vice President & a majority of the cabinet dispute the President's resumption of powers & duties, the President keeps those powers & duties. The President only looses those powers & duties (a second time) only when the VP & majority of Cabinet re-invoke the amendment. You both better read over the amendment again, concerning Section 4. It's only after the VP & majority of the cabinet have re-invoked the amendment, that the VP resumes being Acting President & continues as such until/unless Congress rules in favor of the President. The Within 4-days dispute, is what gets the Congress fully involved. It's the President's resumption of powers & duties that's being disputed. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. And do you have any law journal articles, constitutional scholars, or memos from the Department of Justice (such as I cited above) supporting your eccentric interpretation that shall resume... unless contemplates presidential power ping-pong? EEng 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added a sourced reference to the Vice President remaining Acting President during the four-day period. If necessary, I will add a source from One Heartbeat Away, Senator Birch Bayh's book about how the Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Those sources contradict the wording in Section 4 of the 25th amendment, concerning this time period. Anyways, I'm not interested in an edit war with the two of you. Therefore, write it up anyway you please. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't keep insisting on your own WP:OR. Either you have sources supporting your reading or you don't, and apparently you don't. EEng 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is now adequate sourcing showing that the Vice President remains Acting President during the four-day period. The 25A is complicated, so it's easy to misinterpret it. GoodDay is a very good editor and his interpretation had advocates in the Congress who tried to change the amendment's wording so the President would immediately regain his powers without waiting to see if the VP and Cabinet would challenge him. Their attempt to so change the wording was defeated. SMP0328. (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, how our discussion was already had off of Wikipedia, in the US Congress :) GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting, and it's what we've been trying to explain to you: legislative history. Frequently when two reasonable people disagree over the reading of a law, if you look in the preadoption debates you'll find the same question discussed there. Legislative history is not binding on the court but it is, as they say, persuasive. In the instant case, the Yale "reader's guide" says

The legislative record makes clear that Congress was in part concerned about a structural issue: that if power shifted back to the President during those four days, the President might attempt to use those official powers to prevent the Vice President and Principal Officers from countering his “no inability” declaration. In fact, when a representative in the House suggested changing the language to put the President in charge during the waiting period, the proposal failed due to concerns that, during that period, the President might fire his entire Cabinet to keep the Principal Officers from contesting his declaration. Senator Bayh affirmed that the drafters sought to keep to a minimum “the number of times the power of the Presidency would change” hands.

While a careful parse of Section 4's he shall resume the powers... unless... within four days language leads to this conclusion anyway (I know you don't believe that, but it does), the legislative history removes all doubt. EEng 01:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Stabilize

Many improvements have been made to the article, but I am wondering when the article will stabilize. The article is in flux and there should be a point at which only the most minor of changes are made to it. Significant improvements have been made, but soon we should let the article settle. SMP0328. (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Why? EEng 05:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

IMO, an article should reach a point where it isn't receiving major changes absent a major event regarding the subject covered by the article and consensus on the article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree every article should reach that point -- it's called WP:Featured article status. EEng 07:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Any chance this article has reached that point? It's already a good article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt strongly it's GA (I suspect there are some gaps in the referencing, and possibly the same in coverage just a bit) but it could probably be got there with some work. FA is for masochists.

Anyway, the article stabilizes when editors run out of ideas for improving it. I certainly see more to do in terms of copyediting and some work needed in organization/presentation, particularly re the legislative history. Plus I intend to go through one or two of the comprehensive sources like the Yale reader's guide and bring in material from there. All this will take time.

On a related point, I don't think the Simple article is simple enough for Trump to understand (too many high school–level words, not enough pictures) so we probably should give some attention to that. EEng 03:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Andrew McCabe

A subsection of the Considered invocations section referred to Andrew McCabe's interview on 60 Minutes in which he says there was a discussion about the 25A. While the discussion did not result in even coming close to resulting in an invocation, it still should count as a consideration. The article refers to the discussion over invoking the 25A in 1987 regarding President Reagan. Why should this be different? SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

See my edit summary here [7]. (I hadn't seen your post here when I made that edit.) We can reconsider this after the upcoming broadcast, when there will likely be more available to work with. EEng 07:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. I'll be back here after the interview's broadcast. SMP0328. (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There's strangely little dispute on this page. EEng 07:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The episode has been broadcast, and while I didn't get a chance to see it, it seems like nothing substantive has changed. The head of the FBI is not a Cabinet member, and has no official role in a 25th Amendment invocation, but he's senior enough that it's still an important story IMO. No need to belabor it, but I think it should be there, at least in brief. 142.245.193.3 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

the period McCabe is talking about, the early days of the presidency, is also when a meeting was held by cabinet officials about the 25th according to the NYT's White House source for the op-ed I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. 1Veertje (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored the material and added a critique by Senator Lindsey Graham. I'm sure it won't be the final, but I ask that the size of the material regarding Trump not get bigger than a standard paragraph (3-4 non-run-on sentences). That's the proper size considering there's no claim that Section 4 was close to being invoked or that there's currently an effort within the Trump Administration to invoke Section 4. SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As encyclopedists, should we really write about things that didn't happen? — JFG ^talk 04:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

McCabe says it did happen, that there was a discussion of invoking Section 4. There is a reliable source for McCabe claiming this discussion took place, so why should it not be in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump and Comey

@SMP0328.: @EEng: @1Veertje: Can we please have a discussion here about the relevance of the discussion about Trump, Comey, McCabe, etc.? I count "Trump" in the Edit summary for 8 changes by 3 named users and 3 different IP addresses. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We are having a discussion, it's in the thread immediately above this one. This thread is redundant. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that now. Please excuse. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump removed???

Any source???--78.102.53.207 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been no indication from any reputable media outlet as of yet that a majority of cabinet members/VP has invoked the 25th Amendment for his removal. There has only been a discussion regarding the circumstances and his fitness to hold the office. Some outlets have reported that various legislators have called for this to take place but nothing kinetic has happened as of yet. OfficerManatee (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

25th Amendment may be invoked.

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1346993660718698496

A twitter status of cabinet secretaries confirms that the 25th Amendment may be much closer to being invoked than previously thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjo28 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• For Christ's sake, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. EEng 02:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please leave Christ out of it. Thanks. You're right about Wikipedia not being a newspaper, though. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism, let people be expressive, it gets the message across. The user is being fair in their criticism. OfficerManatee (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

minthreadsleft

Re the archiving bot setting |minthreadsleft=. Setting this value to below four means talk pages are emptied out by the archival bot. It means there's no TOC, and the page looks strangely empty. Normally there is no controversy regarding why 4 or 5 is commonly used and seen, but since this value has been changed by multiple times I guess we have to bring it to talk.

I suggest 4. CapnZapp (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of the point of archiving threads is to take old ones off of the talk page. A talk page is for active conversations about its article. Having one thread on the talk page is enough to prevent it from being emptied out. This isn't even a current issue, as autoarchivng is set to 180 days. Even if no more commenting took place on this talk place and as long as autoarchiving are unchanged, autoarchiving won't kick in before April. SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The true point of archiving is to prevent talk pages from becoming very long. There are lots of slow talk pages, some with very old discussions, and noone is concerned about that. The issue thus isn't whether archiving bots should "take old ones off" because that's obvious. The issue here is instead what you skirted, namely whether to empty out talk pages doing that. I'm arguing let's not do that - there is nothing gained, but to many editors a single-discussion talk page lacking a TOC comes across as unfamiliar: new, unpopular or just strange. CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not "skirt" any issue. I said above that as long as there is at least one thread on a talk page that talk page is not emptied out. Having old discussions that have ceased having any new comments on a talk page does not provide any illusion that there is a current discussion on that talk page. Everyone can read the time stamps on comments, so there's no point to keeping long-dormant discussions on a talk page. As for this talk page, there are three active discussions and autoarchiving is set to 180 days. This means, under that setting, it will be at least six months before either of these discussions is autoarchived. The only purpose achieved by setting minthreadsleft to 4 on this talk page is to keep those three discussions on the talk page long after they have concluded. Setting minthreadsleft to 1 will allow two of those discussions to be autoarchived while keeping one thread in place to avoid emptying out this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. The 180d you keep talking so much about was changed by EEng while reverting your minthreadsleft change and helping you achieve your goals. Arguing 180d speaks in your favor is not logical.

And again, archiving is not done to take old discussions off the page. As you say yourself, everyone can read the time stamps on comments. There's no harm in leaving them. Otherwise we would archive all talk pages, even ones with maybe only half a dozen topics in total, even over decades. We don't do that - there are plenty of talk pages with decade old talk discussions. No, you archive talk pages to keep the size/length down.

When I'm talking about talk pages being emptied out, I do not mean blanking the page. Please don't reinterpret my words. Had I meant for "one thread on the talk page is enough to prevent it from being emptied out" I wouldn't have used that phrase, I would have used "blanking". So, no, one thread on the talk page is not enough to prevent it from being emptied out. That's why I suggest minthreadsleft=4.

CapnZapp (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest for a compromise, SMP? CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How about two? That certainly should be enough to keep this talk page looking active. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• I can hardly believe my fingers are typing this, but I agree with CapnZapp. Always leaving a few threads does several things: (1) gives you a feeling that if you post something, someone may be listening; (2) gives a sense of what's been going on recently; (3) via the timestamps, gives a sense of how recent "recently" is. There's no harm at all in leaving some old threads, and I'd vote for keeping it 4. EEng 01:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is fooled by keeping four threads up when those threads have been dormant for months. Threads that have been dormant for months are not "recent" discussions. Timestamps of whatever number of threads are on the talk page can tell a person what has been happening recently on the talk page. That's true with 1, 2, 3, or 4 threads. What are your views on compromising at 2 threads? SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I said had anything to do with fooling anyone, and I made it clear that my use of recent was to be interpreted on a time scale anywhere from days to glacial. I still think a generous number like 4 is best, to give a significant overview of "recent" activity and the period over which "recent" is to be interpreted. In fact, the state of the talk page until recently [8], containing five threds spread over the last three years, gave a good sense of what's been going on, the kinds of issues that have been arising, and the way they've been handled. At least one, in fact, is arguably still live despite its age. Leave the parameter 4, I say. EEng 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The article needs a few more sources and a few improved sources. I have added some inline tags. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Requested / Recentism

See Recentism

I have a current request for semi-protection on the article due to the massive amount of traffic increase associated with recent events. A number of unregistered IP users have made significant changes to the article, including new/altered sections and a review is likely warranted at this point.

Please be sure to put up a template should you be making sweeping changes or expansions to an article. OfficerManatee (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. There's been only very minor disruption and it's already under WP:Pending changes. EEng 11:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I somehow missed the current level of protection, my apologies. I'll work on removing my request if possible. OfficerManatee (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see it's been declined already, error and misjudgment on my part.OfficerManatee (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Refspam?

Could you confirm that this edit [9] was intentional, User:Diannaa? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed this edit while removing content added by Lglenhaber, whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to add material sourced to one particular website. It's a form of citation spam to add content as a way to try to drive traffic to a particular website, in this case publicseminar.org. Two different named accounts were doing this yesterday - Helenlctan and Lglenhaber.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Errors on Mobile version of this Article

I'm not at all sure how to go about this so I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable sees this and can rectify it. The 'Section 3' and 'Section' 4 portions of this article (images) are not displaying correctly when I access it via a mobile device. Tried it on a tablet and a phone. If you click on 'Section 4' a image of the 'Section 3' letter shows up.

I just got on my desktop and it appears to be correct on this platform.

Regards, _Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.7.179.224 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this.

This sounds like a software bug that should be reported. I'm not sure the best way to do that, but I clicked on "Help" under "Contribute" on the left in the standard version of the article. (I don't know how to find it in the mobile version.)

Under "Help:Contents#Report a problem with an article, I read, "Alternatively you can contact us", and clicked, "Contact us". There I read, "You can also email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at [email protected]".

To find out where to report a software bug, I looked under "Help:Contents". There I found, "Help:Contents#Help by topic. Under that, I clicked ,"Technical information". That says, "Bug reports ... should be filed on Wikimedia's Phabricator."

However, reporting bugs on Phabricator is not easy, especially if you haven't done it before. Instead, I suggest you "email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at [email protected]", as previously suggested, and direct them to this discussion on this talk page.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold your horses there, DavidMCEddy. Can you first confirm you can replicate the IP's problem? What is meant by "portions of this article (images)"? The quoted portions aren't images, they're text boxes generated by {{quote box}}. What OS and browser is the IP using? I just browsed the article on mobile (Samsung Browser) and everything appeared to be fine on a quick look. In particular: When I expanded the header "Section 4: Declaration by vice president and principal officers" the correct text appeared. I then accessed the same page in Firefox and Chrome (all three browsers on an Android phone), and while subheaders aren't individually expandable/collapsible there, the text rendered just fine in both browsers. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Twenty-fifth or Twenty-Fifth

In the body of the article, "Twenty-fifth" has been changed to "Twenty-Fifth" recently. In other writings, I've seen both. Is there any objective evidence as to which is grammatically correct or what, if anything, wikipolicy has to say on the matter? SMP0328. (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. I was up all night. I've decapped it again. EEng 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Section 1

Hasn't Section 1 been invoked in 1974 when President Richard Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became the president ? The latter article says "When Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, Ford automatically assumed the presidency" --BIL (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It was written so yesterday, but the article has been heavily edited since, so I copy that back into the article.--BIL (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Section 1 isn't "invoked". It operates automagically (and anyway what it does is what everyone knew was happening anyway). EEng 05:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Vacant Cabinet Seat(s) Scenario Question

Does anyone have an understanding of how vacant cabinet seats would affect things?

Would those empty seats count as nays? It would give a president quite an incentive to clear out the cabinet before a vote could take place.

Would it just require a majority of the currently filled seats, even if that majority was a very small number? I.e. there are only 3 filled positions and 2 vote yea. (Further: if there are only 2 cabinet members and the VP, could a VP yea vote push a tie over the line?). A president would still have quite a potential advantage if they acted before a cabinet could vote.

Or would vacant cabinet positions not even matter because the next person below the cabinet position is automatically granted the powers of the executive position until someone can be confirmed?

I believe that congress can appoint a body to perform this task, so any sort of shuffling a president could do to cabinet positions would only delay things. KaViGa (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect that acting secretaries can participate in making the Section 4 declaration. EEng 17:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

I think the coverage of the recently-proposed legislation creating a body to assess incapacity under the Amendment is worth including. I've seen some attempts here, and a reversion of them. The text added strikes me as too embroiled in the present and the whole Trump/anti-Trump factor.

The amendment says "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"... and up to now, it's always been a matter for the Cabinet ("principal officers of the executive departments"); and this is the first (I think) legislation to provide for the other alternative, the "such other body as Congress may by law provide". It ought to be covered, but as apolitically as possible. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the references in the "Refideas" template above could help with that. I no longer have Heinonline, but the Bayh reference looks like a particularly good one. Bayh was one of the earliest proponents of the amendment as Senator; and, since his article was in 1995, it clearly predates all the Trump angst. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a reference to such legislation, but with some caveats.

First, the amendment and the proposed legislation must be correctly described. Some news articles have incorrectly claimed the amendment can be used to remove a President from office and others have referred to the proposed legislation as creating a body that alone could declare a President to be disabled. Nobody can be removed from office under the 25A and under Section 4 the VP must agree that the President is disabled; it can be with a majority of the Cabinet or with a majority of a Congressionally created body, but the VP must agree for Section 4 to be invoked.

Second, we have to keep the text of the proposed legislation in mind. This is so we avoid synthesis. Many people will interpret the proposed legislation and, while it would be accurate to quote those interpretations, we should avoid citing them, because that could easily confuse readings as to the contents of the proposed legislation.

Finally, avoid giving the proposed legislation undue weight. The amount of attention the article gives the proposed legislation should be relative to the amount of attention it receives in Congress, the news media, and academia.

I know most editors will find the above to be obvious, but it's very important that all editors contributing to this article be accurate and neutral in this matter. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if there's more but one removal was done by me for two reasons: 1) undue emphasis on Trump 2) wrong section ("Considered invocations" is just factually incorrect). This would be much more natural to present as a continuation of " Proposal, enactment, and ratification". The basic news ("bill on setting up a committee") is fine if it's noteworthy. I am not sure it is noteworthy yet. CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity on this subject, maybe y'all thought my response to be opposed to including info about the proposed legislation. I'm actually not. I just ask you to find a better place for it in the article than under "considered invocations", since it isn't about considering an actual invocation, it's about changing procedure re: future invocations. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note: no manual archiving is necessary

Automatic archiving is set up and operating:

{{Auto archiving notice}}

Please respect its parameters and do not manually archive talk sections without first achieving consensus. If you wish automatic archiving to be turned off, do feel free to suggest this here on talk, but again await consensus before preempting the bot's actions. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I changed the archival delay to 30 days since that's roughly what these manual archival actions accomplished. Now it is no longer necessary to manually archive - just let the bot do its work. Also made sure the bot won't eat the talk table of contents. CapnZapp (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for consensus before manually archiving threads that no longer serve any function, nor is manual archiving "preempting the bot's actions". It's rarely "necessary" to manually archive, but there are times it makes sense and makes things better. If someone wants to resurrect an archived thread they can do so. There being no history of this page being congested, I've changed the 30 back to 180. EEng 23:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

First off, I have no problem with |age=180. I changed the archival delay to 30 days only to remove the need for you to manually intervene. Archiving a discussion sends the signal the discussion is closed. Reopening (or "resurrecting") a discussion is noticeably less convenient that just continuing one - and there just is no need to discourage some discussions more than others. Please don't take the right to unilaterally decide which talk sections "no longer serve any function". CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can point to a discussion inappropriately archived, do so; otherwise please put a lid on it. You seem to fetishize mindless rules and roboticism over human judgment – for example, see WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_14#The_policy_on_user_talk_pages_(length,_organization). EEng 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I dislike arbitrary exceptions from rules and reserve my right to say so. In that case, the way policy tells new users there are rules in place against large talk pages, without there being any enforcement. When I attempted to match policy and reality I was reverted. I could neither overcome opposition to relax the policy to truthfully reflect the reality for entrenched users, nor could I overcome opposition to strengthen the policy so that its stipulations actually becomes an actionable offense. These opposing editors clearly prefer the situation where they don't have to abide by the rules everybody else thinks they need to follow. In short I object to any rule or limitation that applies to everybody else but not me.

In this case, your manual archiving effectively closes discussions. But you don't get to decide for which talk sections resumed discussion should be heavily discouraged. If we editors agree the talk volume is such that automatic archival is needed, we should of course let it do the archiving with no favoritism or preemptive manual archiving taking place. You don't get to ask me to provide specific arguments against each manual archiving and I don't need to provide any; I'm asking you to stop manually archiving any talk page maintained by a bot. CapnZapp (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm asking you to stop manually archiving any talk page maintained by a bot – Sorry, but that's just stupid.
• You don't get to ask me to provide specific arguments against each manual archiving – Forget "each" manual archiving -- how about if we start by you pointing to even a single example?

EEng 09:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Letters

There is a display of letters from the Reagan Administration in the Invocations and considered invocations section. This display does not include letters from George W. Bush transferring and reclaiming the powers and duties of the presidency, and from Joe Biden reclaiming said powers and duties. Either those letters should be included or the list should be removed. I lean toward the latter as the display, IMO, is getting too large. Perhaps we can replace the display with a link to the letters. SMP0328. (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The Section 4 draft after Reagan was shot has some interest, but we should dump the rest. EEng 02:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We should have the copies of the Reagan 1985 letters, the Bush 2002 & 2007 letters & the Biden 2019 letters, either in this article or in the acting president of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? They're just the same thing over and over. EEng 11:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no need to have images of every letter ever related to such transfers. Why would we need Biden's letter? One example's enough. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Pelosi seeking changes to Section 4 of the amendment.

Since Biden's taken office, I haven't been able to find any sources that Pelosi is continuing to seek changes to Section 4 of the 25th amendment. I'm assuming she's dropped the plan. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

She was never seeking to change Section 4. She was seeking to do exactly what Section 4 contemplates, which is have Congress designate a body to make determinations of presidential inability. EEng 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)