A provocative new proposal from Representative Darrell Issa is forcing a national conversation about one of the most sensitive and critical parts of our constitutional order: the 25th Amendment.

In the wake of revelations about a potential “cover-up” of former President Biden’s declining health, Issa suggests that the mechanism for removing an incapacitated president is fundamentally flawed and requires a new constitutional amendment to fix it.

This is not merely a partisan response to a former political rival. It is a serious challenge to the existing framework of presidential succession and fitness. The controversy has exposed a deep, structural vulnerability in our system, prompting a difficult but necessary debate:

Who can be trusted to judge a president’s fitness for office, and how do you design a system that cannot be abused for political ends?

The Loyalty Paradox of the 25th Amendment

To understand the problem, one must first understand the design. The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 after the assassination of President Kennedy, was intended to provide a clear process for when a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Section 4 grants the power to initiate this process to the Vice President, acting together with a majority of the Cabinet.

The amendment’s drafters placed this immense power within the executive branch for a specific reason: they believed the officials closest to the president were in the best position to accurately judge his condition.

This design, however, contains a “loyalty paradox.” The very people empowered to act are those who owe their careers and positions to the president they would be moving against. Their loyalty, political calculations, or fear of retribution may conflict with their constitutional duty.

As Rep. Issa argues, if the Vice President and Cabinet’s “impartiality can be questioned,” the entire safeguard fails.

A Cure More Dangerous Than the Disease?

Issa’s proposed solution is to bring the other two branches of government—Congress and the Supreme Court—into the process of determining presidential fitness. While the specifics are yet to be drafted, pending the outcome of House Oversight Committee investigations, the concept itself represents a monumental shift in the separation of powers.

On one hand, this would solve the loyalty paradox by creating an external check on the executive branch. On the other, it could introduce a new and perhaps more dangerous disease: the weaponization of presidential removal for purely political purposes.

Imagine a newly elected president immediately facing removal proceedings initiated by a hostile Congress from the opposing party.

A politically divided Supreme Court could then be asked to cast the deciding vote. Such a mechanism could paralyze the executive branch, leading to a state of constant constitutional crisis. The stability of the presidency, a cornerstone of our government, could be threatened by every shift in the political winds.

The framers of the 25th Amendment sought to avoid this very scenario, fearing it would make the presidency too weak and vulnerable.

The High Bar of a Constitutional Fix

Amending the Constitution is, by design, an incredibly difficult process. It requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-quarters of the states. This high bar exists to ensure that the fundamental rules of our government are not altered based on the passions of a single political moment.

Any proposed amendment to the 25th Amendment, especially one born from such a politically charged controversy, would face this immense hurdle.

It would require a broad, bipartisan consensus that the current system is truly broken and that the proposed solution is not worse than the problem it aims to solve.

A Question That Cannot Be Ignored

Regardless of whether Rep. Issa’s specific amendment is the right answer, he has raised a legitimate and vital question. The controversy surrounding the end of the Biden administration has exposed a potential vulnerability at the heart of our constitutional order.

The nation now faces a difficult debate about how to balance the need for a safeguard against an incapacitated president with the need to protect the presidency itself from becoming a target of partisan warfare.

This leaves us with a series of critical questions for the future of our republic:

• How can a constitutional system ensure the fitness of its leader when the only people empowered to act are his own political allies?
• Would involving Congress and the Supreme Court in removal create a necessary check, or would it lead to political chaos?
• What is the proper balance between ensuring continuity of government and protecting the presidency from being destabilized for political gain?

The 25th Amendment was created to solve a crisis. We must now consider whether the solution itself is in need of repair.