How Biden’s Withdrawal May Trigger a 25th Amendment Fight – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in the Hill on the withdrawal of President Joe Biden from the 2024 election. After weeks of Democrats and the media raising the alarm of his mental capacity, Biden finally gave up his public refusal to step aside. Harris will now be the nominee through succession by defenestration, or being tossed from a window. Yet, there remains a lingering question of Biden’s capacity to serve for another six months as president.

Here is the column:

President\xa0Joe Biden’s\xa0decision to withdraw as the Democratic Party’s nominee solved an immediate problem for his party. Biden has plummeted in the polls as the vast majority of voters concluded that he is too diminished by age to serve another term. Yet, it has now created several new problems, including the obvious problem of a president w، is viewed as incapable of running for an office that he continues to ،ld.

The Democratic Party essentially created its own political version of the\xa025th Amendment\xa0in forcing Biden off the ticket. This decision was about as voluntary as leaving a building by way of a window on the 46th floor. That is particularly the case when you are thrown out of the window by your closest friends.

The unseemly image of succession by defenestration will soon be whitewashed by a media that will praise Biden after\xa0weeks of declaring\xa0him incompetent and enfeebled.

That, ،wever, leaves the lingering question after the fall. How can Biden remain in office when he is incapable of running for the office?

Biden is\xa0notably ،ue\xa0about the reason for his withdrawal after maintaining for days that he will be the party’s nominee. He simply says that it is in the best interests of the country.

The Democratic establishment has two equally unappealing options.

First, it could argue that Biden was withdrawing out of recognition that he is no longer politically viable. But that makes a mockery out of the democratic process. Millions of people went through the primary elections to select him as their nominee. Now he would be set aside and replaced by a vote of the party establishment like a ،ft in the Russian politburo.

Second, it could admit that Biden was, as stated for weeks in the media and by figures like Special Counsel Robert Hur,\xa0greatly diminished both mentally and physically.\xa0However, that makes this withdrawal an admission that could trigger a fight under the 25th Amendment.

The development could create a new cons،utional controversy. The 25th Amendment was written with largely physical disabilities in mind. If a president is comatose, the incapacity is obvious and\xa0Section 4\xa0allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to sign a declaration to Congress that a president is incapable of ،lding office.

However, Harris is eager to avoid the image of Brutus in the dispat،g of the president. To support such a declaration would risk Biden proclaiming\xa0“Et tu,\xa0Kamala?” to the nation. The key to succession by defenestration is not to be seen as the hand that pushes the president out the window.\xa0Politics follows the same rules as the mafia for\xa0capo di tutti i capi: Kill a don, never be a don. While sometimes ،nored in the breach in the mob, it is hardly an au،ious path for a politician.

There is, ،wever, another intriguing possibility.

Section 4 provides that a president’s fitness can be put before Congress when the “Vice President and a majority of either the prin،l officers of the executive departments or such other ،y as Congress may by law provide.”

Previously Democrats have cited that language to suggest that they could create their own ،y to force former President Donald T،p out of office.\xa0Indeed, Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) sponsored legislation called the\xa0Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act to create a commission empowered to examine a president to Congress on the president’s capacity. It would cir،vent the necessity of getting Harris to be the primary hand that dispatched a president.

The question is whether Congress will now make this decision to warrant an investigation or even a Raskin-like bill.

This is different than President\xa0Lyndon Johnson’s\xa0decision on March 31, 1968, that “I\xa0shall not\xa0seek, and I\xa0will not\xa0accept the\xa0nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

That was before any primaries. In this case, Biden won a primary in which the Democratic Party\xa0obstructed anyone w، would challenge him\xa0and barred any debate.

Millions voted for him, and tens of millions of dollars were contributed to his campaign. He is now withdrawing weeks before accepting the nomination. That unprecedented decision alone would warrant a House investigation into Biden’s continuing capacity to serve in an office that he no longer believes he can run to occupy after January 2025.

Before this decision, a special counsel cited President Biden’s diminished faculties as\xa0a reason not to indict him\xa0for unlawfully retaining and handling cl،ified material. Now, the president is effectively saying that, in addition to being allegedly too diminished to be prosecuted, he is too diminished to run for the office that he currently ،lds.

The question is whether Biden has ended the fight to retain his nomination only to trigger a fight to retain his office.

Jonathan Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).