Login or Sign Up
Menu
Ask a New Question

I just have some questions i'd like to know for the future if anyone can help?

*why do vice presidents have more responsiblity now than before

*What does the 25th amendment have to do with change?

Perhaps vice presidents have more responsibility because the executive branch has so much more to do because of much higher population and responsibilities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

When Walter Mondale agreed to run for Vice-President with Jimmy Carter, he demanded to become part of the decision-making process, and Carter agreed. Such has it been ever since 1977. The Vice-President's office used to be in the Executive Office Building; now it's in the West Wing near the President's office. The Vice-President, in the past, was a political decision, to "balance the ticket" with someone from a geographical area the Presidential candidate needed to carry in the election, then quickly pushed aside. Not so much any more. Now, it's someone who can bring some expertise to the table.

As for the 25th amendment, there was no provision in the Constitution to deal with a situation in which the President might be incapacitated. It has happened. Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke while in office. Ronald Reagan was shot and almost died, was incapacitated for weeks. A method was desired to deal with such situations, should they arise again. It was a change in the Constitution in and of itself. Now, some people would invoke it, fearing that President Trump shows signs of mental illness. It was not intended to cover mental illness, but could be used in such a case, to provide for a change in leadership if the sitting President was deemed to be incompetent to perform the duties of office without going through the impeachment process.

The 25th Amendment has a fatal flow for impeaching someone accused of mental illness. The president could fire his cabinet to prevent them from invoking this amendment.

It has happened in the more distant past, too. President Garfield was shot by an assassin in 1881 and lingered, unable to perform his duties, for months before he, unfortunately, died of his wounds. Franklin Pierce was devastated by the death of his young son (in a train wreck - his parents watched him die) between the election and his inauguration. He, apparently, suffered from severe depression and became a heavy drinker, with little interest in the affairs of state. Back in the 19th century, the Federal government wasn't as powerful as it is now, so the impact on the nation was not as severe as it would be today if the President was incapacitated.

And, Ms. Sue is right. It might not work in a case of mental illness.

And, PLEASE, Jason, know that I am NOT saying that our current President should or should not be removed from office under the 25th amendment. There are those who have discussed it, though.

As for the Vice-Presidency, even the first Vice-President, John Adams, complained that his office was useless. President Washington did not rely on him for advice or include him in making decisions. John Nance Garner, who served as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Vice-President in his first two terms, said that the office wasn't worth a "pitcher of spit" (although he used a cruder substance in his analogy). Harry Truman was ignored by Pres. Roosevelt, too, and had no idea of things like the development of the atom bomb until he had to assume the Presidency when Mr. Roosevelt passed away.