Under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a president may be removed from office if the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members send a written declaration to the U.S. House and Senate that "the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
The president could challenge the declaration, but the vice president would immediately become acting president until Congress makes a final decision.
Last week, Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded his investigation into President Joe Biden's alleged mishandling of classified information. His report found no clear evidence of President Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and so no criminal charges were recommended.
But his report also suggested a jury would find President Biden "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
That phrase further fueled speculation that President Bide, at age 81, may be too old for the job of chief executive.
The president's political foes were quick to suggest the 25th Amendment should be brought into play to force President Biden to prove to the satisfaction of Congress he is mentally fit to hold office.
We want to know what you think. Are you concerned about President Biden's age and mental competence? Should the 25th Amendment be invoked?
Send your response (50 words maximum) to [email protected] by Wednesday, February 21. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E. Broad St, Texarkana, Ark. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday's paper.
Last Week: Who's to Blame?
Last week's question was about parents facing criminal charges for failing to see, or ignoring, signs a child might commit a violent crime. Are there cases where parents or other responsible adults such as teachers or medical professionals should be held criminally responsible for a child's violent crimes? Or should only the child face criminal prosecution?
Parents should be responsible and secure weapons for children under the age of 18. The point of determining the level of warning signs from a child is much more difficult to discern. Where is the line for that judgement? -- K.B., Texarkana, Arkansas
From facebook.com/texarkanagazette
- She was doomed when she was asked if she would do anything differently if she had it to do over and she said "no". Told jurors all they needed to know.
- Yeah, I don't think the state needs to be arbitrarily deciding when the state thinks I should have gotten the state involved in the swinging emotional state of a teenager. Securing the handgun, sure it's negligent, but not being able to read your child's mind? That's unacceptable.