After the horrifying events of Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the 25th Amendment is getting lots of air time. The 25th Amendment, enacted in 1965 and ratified in 1967, provides in Section 4 that when the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive Cabinet or a review body Congress designates write to the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The second part of Section 4 says that if the above occurs, the President can then write the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House and say that no inability exists. If that happens and all is well, the President immediately resumes his duties. However, if the Vice President and a majority of those aforementioned principal officers re-transmit, within four days, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, then Congress shall decide the issue. In 48 hours they are to assemble for that purpose, if they are not in session. They have 21 days to make a decision once they are assembled. If Congress decides, by a 2/3 vote of both Houses, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President.

If the required parties were to tender their first written document to the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House today, Friday, January 8, the President has four days to respond. Congress has 48 hours to assemble. The President would have until Thursday, January 14, to respond (If we use business days). Then the Vice President and the others must send their written document again. Even if they do so on the 14th, Congress must deliberate on the issue, and they have 21 days to decide whether the President is unable to fulfill his duties. In this case, it seems unlikely that Congress could agree on such a major issue quickly enough to remove the President from office before his actual term of office ends on January 20. (The House is not scheduled to be back in session until January 19, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) hasn’t ruled out bringing the House back next week.)

At this juncture, Vice President Pence opposes invoking the 25th Amendment. The Vice President’s reluctance to pursue that course of action is echoed by several Trump cabinet officials, who are of the opinion that such an attempt would add to Washington’s chaos, rather than reducing it.

Even though the Vice President is against it, the National Association of Manufacturers has called for Mr. Pence to “seriously consider working with the cabinet” to get the Amendment invoked and to remove President Trump to “preserve democracy.” Almost 100 Democratic members of Congress agree.

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Thursday, “The quickest and most effective way - it can be done today - to remove this president from office would be for the vice president to immediately invoke the 25th Amendment.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed Schumer’s call, saying “If the vice president and Cabinet do not act, the Congress may be prepared to move forward with impeachment.”

There are a number of people and groups who also want to impeach the President for his actions around the “illegal and violent takeover of one of the most hallowed traditions in American democracy.” Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois wrote that Mr. Pence should act “to ensure the next few weeks are safe for the American people, and that we have a sane captain of the ship.”

The 25th Amendment has never been used to remove presidential powers without the president’s consent before. Although it had been under consideration in a variety of guises for more than 100 years, it was not until after President Kennedy’s assassination that the legislature became more focused on crafting this amendment. Section 3 has been implemented expressly twice during the George W. Bush presidency (two colonoscopies) and once, implicitly, during the Reagan presidency (cancer surgery). On all three occasions the President agreed with the implementation of Amendment 25. Section 4 of the Amendment has never been invoked.

There was concern, at the time of drafting, and later, that to employ the 25th Amendment might provoke a constitutional crisis. In 2017, writer Evan Osnos said, “ … sort of nightmare scenario that scholars describe as contested removal, in which a president would object to the idea that he’s been determined to be unwell. It’s kind of amazing . . . that you would have Congress actively, openly, publicly discussing the question of whether or not the president of the United States was mentally fit to return to the presidency.”

Osnos’s nightmare scenario is happening now.

If the 25th Amendment were to be invoked, and were Congress to determine quickly that Mr. Pence should become the Acting President, then the House of Representatives could quickly draft and pass articles of impeachment. Again, this seems unlikely with the divided House, even in light of Wednesday’s fracas that seems to have removed some staunch Republicans from the Trump wagon.

(Even in light of the rioting caused largely by his rhetoric, Trump would not condemn the mob. In a video he told them they were “very special.” The violence that occurred left five people dead (as of this writing) and defaced or destroyed federal property.)

If articles of impeachment were drafted and passed (with or without the enactment of Amendment 25), then the Senate would need to hold an immediate, efficient, and, hopefully, fair, trial. At this trial, they could remove President Trump from office and further disqualify him from holding public office in the future. This last would be a natural response to Trump’s anti-democratic response to the 2020 Presidential election and the certification of the electoral college votes. Some say the importance of the disqualification from holding public office is so important that impeachment should go forward, even if Trump is out of office by the time proceedings begin.

Pelosi has warned the White House that the House would impeach Trump for “seditious acts.” “This is urgent — this is an emergency of the highest magnitude,” she said Thursday. “My phone has been exploding with ‘impeach, impeach, impeach.’”

President-elect Joe Biden would rather focus on taking office. A source close to Biden said, “Impeachment would not help unify this country.”

On Friday, January 8, the House Democrats will hold their first full-caucus call since the attack on the capitol. This call will be the first chance for lawmakers to talk to leadership about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, and security concerns within the Capitol.

The Democrats are exploring offering articles of impeachment through a privileged resolution, which would allow them to move ahead to impeach Trump within two days, to skip hearings and move straight to a vote. “We don’t need a lengthy debate,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

Impeachment resolutions are already being drafted. One that seems to have the most support is being drafted by Representatives David Cicilline (RI), Jamie Raskin (MD) and Ted Lieu (CA). Another is being drafted by Representative Ilhan Omar (MN).

Whereas the 25th Amendment was intended for illness or other incapacities, impeachment is perhaps the more apt right response to the President’s unscrupulous conduct, which includes incitement to violence combined with disregard for and attacks upon democratic traditions upheld in this country for centuries. For many, this conduct and disregard make impeachment imperative as a defense of democracy. Impeachment, and disqualification from holding public office ever again, would keep Trump from another attempt at the presidency. It would reassure the world that the United States still rejects authoritarian regimes and holds firm on self-rule and freedom.