I’m seeing a lot of tweets wondering why the 25th Amendment hasn't been invoked on President Trump. “What’s 25A for if not this?!” many ask.

My new book ( http://tinyurl.com/y4r3xlhy ) answers these questions in detail, but to give a Twitter-sized version:

1/7

1. 25A is meant to transfer power swiftly when the president is completely incapacitated. Think coma, serious stroke, severe dementia.

2. It can cover other sorts of cases too, but in such cases it's designed to put two heavy thumbs on the president's side of the scale:

2/7

A: The VP/Cabinet will be naturally reluctant to move against the president. 25A's framers meant this as a feature not a bug.

B: If the pres. is able to challenge the invocation of 25A, he regains power unless 2/3 majorities in both houses vote against him—a very high bar.

3/7

3. As such, 25A4 won't work against very many conscious presidents. His team must think he's incapacitated, not just “unfit” or impaired.

4. Concededly, it might also work on a pres. who's only impaired but has nuttily ordered an imminent catastrophe (e.g. nuke strike).

4/7

5. A president can be batty, somewhat doddering, unwell, or incompetent, and can do all sorts of very bad things, all without meeting 25A4's criteria. Again, 25A was meant to—and designed to—*protect* all but the most severely incapacitated presidents. Think Garfield/Wilson.

5/7

6. I get it—folks worried about Trump's condition want to DO SOMETHING. But that doesn't change the strict limits built into 25A. A successful 25A4 action requires more than unfitness. And the call is made by those close to Trump, not folks who already wanted him out.

6/7

7. If he's impaired and getting worse, 25A4 might make sense eventually. But the failure to use 25A4 so far is a *reflection* of its design, not a subversion of it. Hopefully my book can help people understand that, so they can channel their energy more gainfully elsewhere.

7/7

So what part of my explanation do you think was wrong?