The Constitution Is Not A Rage Button

There’s a lot of noise online about “invoking the 25th,” but most people never hear the actual blueprint. We walk through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment in plain language: who has to act first, what written declarations get filed, how the president can contest it, and why Congress ultimately faces a two thirds vote in both chambers. If you’ve ever wondered whether it works like impeachment, or whether it’s basically a partisan escape hatch, we draw the line clearly and explain what the Constitution really says. 

Then we go past mechanics into motive. The 25th Amendment was built as a fail safe for unmistakable presidential incapacity, not a workaround for frustration, outrage, or a bad news cycle. We talk about why democracies and republics are slow on purpose, how “just this once” thinking becomes precedent, and why normalizing internal removal as a political tool turns stability into a quiet threat hanging over every future administration. 

Finally, we confront the spiritual and cultural cost when the church starts defending power instead of telling the truth. We challenge the habit of sanctifying behavior that contradicts Christian teaching, the temptation of political proximity, and the difference between loyalty to men and faithfulness to Christ. If you care about constitutional process, democratic norms, Christian witness, and the ethics of leadership, this conversation is for you. 

Subscribe for more clear, no-drama breakdowns, share this with someone who keeps asking about the 25th, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway: where do you think the real line should be?

Transcript

Section Four In Plain English

The President Can Fight Back

Why It Is Built To Be Hard

Good Faith Is The Assumption

The Psychology Of Grabbing Control

Resurrection Sunday And A Threat

Theology Shaped By Politics

When The Church Trades Its Voice

Character Still Matters

Final Warning And Sign Off

SPEAKER_00 0:46

Welcome to the Darrow McLean Show. I'm your host, Darrell McLean. Independent media, they won't reinforce tribalism. We have one planet. None of us are leaving, so let us reason together. So let me start off the show like this. With the way I like to do it, which is with a show question. What is the process to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove the president? Thank you for the question. Uh question comes from a listener named Jean. And so I'm gonna answer it technical, then I'll give you my opinion. So stripping out the politics of it and walk straight to the mechanics with no drama, just the blueprint of how it happens. So the part that that's being asked about is section four of the 20 uh 5th amendment of the United States Constitution. This is used not for punishment, it's actually believed to be unable to perform the duties of the office. So you're this is means medical or mental incapacity. So the step by step of how it actually works would be like this. The vice president plus the cabinet would have to make the first move. The vice president and a majority of the cabinet or another body of Congress creates, they they must agree. Then they have to send a written declaration to the Speaker of the House, then the president pro tempora of the Senate at the moment the vice president becomes the acting vice president. Number two, the president can push back. If the president is conscious and disagrees, they can send their own written declaration saying, I'm fine, I can do the job. The power returns to the president unless the VP and the cabinet respond again. Round three, which is like this last next part, is the real fight then begins. With four within like uh four days, the vice president and the cabinet can reassert that the president is unfit, and that is the escalation becomes. Congress will then decide how this happens, but Congress must assemble within 48 hours if not already in session. They actually have 21 days to vote on that process. The threshold is two-thirds majority in both chambers, and that means House and the Senate. If they reach that threshold, the vice president stays acting president. If they don't, the president regains power. What this is not, is this is not impeachment, which is about misconducts or crimes, and it is not the capacity of guilt, etc. The real talk uh on this thing, which is very rare, is this is like if a fire alarm behind glass. You don't pull it unless the building is is actually burning. And I already know the audience is thinking why, so I'm gonna try to answer that in this part, and that is because it actually requires the president's own team, the vice president and the cabinet, to turn it in. This requires a supermajority of Congress. That's the political gravity of the level of pressure. It's been discussed publicly a few times, like after the cr a crisis or so, or a controversial behavior, but it has never been carried out or um or to to actually remove a president under section four. So the bottom line to answer this question is the process is deliberately slow, it's deliberately layered, it's deliberately hard because removing a sitting president without an election is actually one of the most serious actions a Republican take. It's not a weapon like people want it to be. It is supposed to be used as a last resort. Thank you for the amazing question. Now, this is what I actually think about this. I'm gonna say this very plainly in in this section, because uh we're living in a time where uh saying stuff plain feels almost rebellious, but uh it somebody's gotta do it. And being that I am the high priest of the Church of Painful Truth, uh, here you go. The 25th Amendment was never meant to be a political weapon, it was meant to be a fail-safe. It was not a shortcut, and it's not a workaround, and it's not a we don't like the president anymore, so we get the remove him clause. A fail it is a fail-safe, which means somewhere along the way, we started talking about it as just another lever to pull in the machinery of partisan warfare. Like it sits right next to the campaign ads, opposition research, and that is not what it's for. And trying to use it for that shift is actually somewhat dangerous, it's too dangerous because when you turn an emergency tool into a political tool, you just don't damage the presidency, you damage the structure that holds all presidencies together. What the amendment actually assumes, the 25th Amendment, is something we don't talk about enough anymore. It assumes good faith. It assumes that the vice president and the cabinet are not political assassins, but stewards of the country. It assumes that they love the country more than they love the power that they have, and that they would only act on that power if something is clearly undeniably wrong. Not I disagree with his policies now, not his rhetoric bothers me, not he's unpopular this week. No, this is supposed to be for moments where everyone across party lines look up and say, something is broken here. This person cannot function in this role. Now we're talking about something like a stroke level, a coma level, cognitive collapse level concern. That's the bar, and if we start lowering that bar even a little, we just don't change the rule, we change the actual game. So let me tell you um something else. The temptation of power is something you have to avoid, even though Americans fail at it. I want to say it like this power is seductive. It it whispers, it says stuff like it. You don't have to wait for the next election, you don't have to convince the people you can fix this right now. And in a culture that has lost patience, that sounds really good. But for a democracy, a real democracy, to work, you have to have the the process, the parliamentary process, and it have you have to let the process work because democracy, real democracy, republic, real republics, they're slow on purpose. It forces you to persuade to persuade only by persuading people. It forces you to endure outcomes that you don't like, it forces you to trust that the people, not the elites, not the insiders, have the final say. The 25th Amendment bypasses that, but only under extreme conditions. And if we start using it because we're frustrated, our embarrassed or politically threatened, then we've crossed a line that is very hard to uncross. The slippery slope that nobody wants to admit is that even though you may think the president's unstable, etc., etc., they've uh the other party thought the same thing about the last one. And here's the uncomfortable truth. If you normalize using the 25th Amendment against a president you don't like, you better be ready to be used against a president you do like. Because power doesn't stay in one set of hands. What you justify today for the party that you're in will become the precedent for the party you do not like tomorrow. And once that door is open, every future administration lives under a quiet threat. If you become inconvenient, we can remove you. And not through voters, not through elections, but through internal revolt. That is not stability. That is a sort of a soft-form regime change. And history has shown us over and over again systems that normalize eternal coups don't stay stable for very long. Now, this is the psychological layer to this, and this is where I wanted to wear a diff that had counseling psychology hat and make it get a little weird, but it needs to get real. So we're gonna go deeper for just a second because underneath all this is something psychological and spiritual. We're living in a culture that is increasingly uncomfortable with limits. We don't like waiting, we don't like losing, we don't like uncertainty. So we reach for control. And the 25th Amendment, when misused, becomes a tool for control. It says we don't trust the process anymore, so we'll override it. But once you start overriding the process, you stop being governed by principles and start being governed by outcomes, and outcomes are dangerous masters. Why? Because once the goal is win at all costs, there's always a justification for the next step, and the next step, and then the next step, until one day you look up and realize you didn't preserve your republic, you didn't preserve your democracy, you didn't preserve your parliamentary principles, you slowly replaced it. And how did this how did you do this? How how did that oh my goodness, how did this happen? You'll be saying, and here is the honest answer. And the honest answer is uh is always the most difficult one. Only if the undeniably objective and the medically clear that the president cannot perform the job should this be used. Not politically clear, not emotionally clear, not socially clear and trending, medically functioning, unavoidably clear. And even then it should feel heavy, it should feel like the last resort, it should feel like something that sobers the entire nation, not energizes one side of it. If people are cheering while invoking the 25th Amendment, that's already a red flag that it is a political deal and not a medical deal. Because that means we lost sight of what the 25th Amendment is for. Now, my final thought on this is just this a republic doesn't collapse all at once, it erodes quietly, incrementally, one day at a time. Justice once. Uh, we it is isn't it's gonna it's gonna we do it. That's not how life works. It it erodes one decision at a time. The 25th Amendment is one of those lines in the sand. Cross it lightly and you weaken the ground beneath your feet. Respect it even when it's convenient, you uh you you you you loosen the ground. Now use it anytime just because the re the normal process is inconvenient, and now you preserve something bigger than any one president. You preserve the idea that power comes from the people and leaves through the people, and that power doesn't leave through panic, and it doesn't leave through pressure, and it doesn't leave through political maneuvering, but through a system that may be flawed, but it still belongs to the people. Thank you for an amazing question. This leads me into some stuff that I really want to talk about on this show. So I have to talk about something because it really t uh touched me in a way that I needed to succinctly think about. If you are religious, um we just sell there was just celebrated what we is known as Easter. Some people know it as Easter, other people call it Resurrection Day. Um and during this time the president of the United States is instead of being at um church decided to say this Tuesday will be power plant day, bridge day all wrapped up in one, and Iran. There will be nothing like it. Open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch. Praise be to Allah, Donald John Trump. Now, this is on Resurrection Sunday, right? This is the same person that Paula White compared to Jesus. This is same person that white and evangelicals and black MAGA-aligned preachers stood and agreed with that. And this is the problem. Show me in scripture where Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees crazy bastards and cussed them out and threatened to obliterate them. On Resurrection Sunday, presidents that people like or don't like or whatever, this is what they were doing. Former President Barack Obama was in church. Former President Joe Biden was in church. Vice President Kamala Harris was in church. What was Donald Trump doing? Donald Trump was the one that people compare to Jesus was posting threats on social media about killing innocent people innocent because he would not get if he could not get the leaders of their country to come to comply to his will. And so I have to say something about this because of course your regular people are coming out and saying the war is just yada yada yada. They always say that. And I have to I've been clapping back and saying, No, the war is not just, you guys are just political, you have a political view, and because you have a political view, you are letting your politics shape your theology, not the other way around. And and this is this comes it it's come to a point where the church has to decide whether they are following the teachings of the Christ or they're defending power. Jesus was not a soft person, but he never spoke reckless with his words. He rebuked hypocrisy, yes. He called out religious leaders, yes. But even in his strongest moments, there was a moral clarity in everything that he said. There was not chaos, there was conviction, not carnality. You will not find a single place in Scripture where Christ spoke with the kind of vulgarity, threats, and impulsive anger that we are not being asked to baptize is strength. That is not strength, that is flesh. And what troubles me is not just the behavior of politicians. We expect the world to act like the world. What troubles me is the silence, or worse, the agreement of people who claim in the name of Jesus while excusing what Jesus Himself would rebuke. Scripture says this out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. That is in Matthew 12, 34. So the question is not just political, it is spiritual. What spirit are you actually defending here? Because you cannot preach a crucified Savior on Sunday and then turn around and celebrate cruelty, threats, and vulgarity on Monday as if that is the fruit of the Spirit, as that is the fruit of righteousness. The church loses its witness when the world acts like the church, and the church acts like the world. But when the church forgets, it is supposed to be different. We don't need to compare men to Jesus. We need to remember that none of them are. Once you forget that, you are no longer preaching and practicing Christianity, you are practicing loyalty, and that is not the same thing. I'm gonna keep going because I want to say something that's gonna make people uncomfortable here, but truth has never needed permission to speak. There's a very dangerous habit that is starting to form in parts of the church where they are trying to sanctify what they know God would clearly judge, and that is not a small problem, that is not a police uh a political disagreement, that is a spiritual crisis. I saw the post only because I saw it on Facebook from uh Bishop Talbert Swan, and on that point I have to agree with him, not because of party, not because of uh personality, because there is a line, and that line is not drawn by culture, it's drawn by Christ. That comparison should never be made. We have gotten way too comfortable, way too casual with comparing political figures to Jesus. Let me say this plain. Jesus is not a mascot for your political movement, he is not a branding tool, he is not a rhetorical weapon, he is a standard, he is the standard. And when you start comparing flawed men, fallen men, power holding men to the Son of God, you don't elevate the man, you lower the Christ. And that's ideal that that is ideology with a church outfit on, and God will not be mocked by this. What Jesus actually looked like for people who actually read is this. I have to temper myself because I find myself getting so angry about it. But I'm I this is something that I'm very passionate about. So don't get it, don't get me twisted. Jesus was not weak. He flipped tables, he rebuked fair fees, he called out called out hypocrisy with precision. But here's what he did not do. He did not speak recklessly, he did not speak with vulgarity, he did not threaten entire groups of people in fits of rage, he did not operate from impulse, he did not operate from ego, he did not operate from his insecurity, even in judgment, Jesus was measured, even in anger, Jesus was righteous, even in confrontation, he was in control, and that matters because what we are being asked to accept today is not righteous anger, it's just anger because of pride. And let's talk about this together from the heart. Now, because the Bible was invoked, I have to say that. Like I said, Scripture says in Matthew 12, 34, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. So when someone consistently speaks with hostility and vulgarity and threats, it is not a strategy. That's not telling it like it is, that is a window into the heart, and the church has to stop pretending that they don't know the difference because the church does. We don't always want to admit when it is politically inconvenient, and that's the real issue. That's the real issue. It isn't the world, it's the church. And let me tell you something that frustrates me, and where my real concern is it's not a politician acting like a politician's. That's been happening since Rome. My concern in this aspect is the co-opting of the church and to pretend like it it didn't happen. Because the church is supposed to be the conscience of the culture and not the echo of the culture. And right now, in too many places, the church is not correcting power, it is repeating power. It's not it is protecting power, it is hiding situations. Of it. It is explaining it away, excusing it, rebranding it as strength. But if you cannot take that behavior clearly, it contradicts the fruit of the spirit. And it is a slap in the face. God is using him label on it. No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not discernment. That's compromise. That's compromising with the devil. In the hopes that temporary political power will get you to the kingdom of God, and you're gonna wake up and realize you've aligned with the devil, not with the God. And it's because the seduction of power. And I have to be honest about this. Part of this is not even theological, it's psychological. Power is so seductive, access is so attractive. Being close to influence makes people feel so important. And somewhere along the way, some people in the church traded prophetic distance for political proximity. And they got too close. And when they got too close to power, you watched as they stop speaking truth to Israel. Because now they benefit from the power. So instead of calling out sin is sin, they reinterpret it, they soften it, they spiritualize it, they say things like, Well, God uses imperfect people. Well, that's true. He uses me, and trust me, I'm the worst. But God never asks his people to celebrate the imperfections. We are not called to be loyal. We are called to be faithful. And this is where the line gets real clear. Christianity is not about loyalty to men, it is about faithfulness to the Savior. And all those things will eventually collide if you're not careful because every political figure, every single one is flawed, every last one. So if your faith requires you to defend everything they say, everything they do, everything they represent, then your faith is no longer in Christ. Your faith is in political power. And that's the problem. Let me tell you what's really at stake here. It's not just reputation, it's not just politics, it's witness. Because the world is watching and they're asking a very simple question. Is this what Christianity produces? And the loudest Christian voices are defending a behavior that looks no different than everybody else in the world. And if that did and that's and if that's the case, then why would the world take the gospel seriously? You can't preach love, grace, humility, and self-control, and then publicly celebrate arrogance, cruelty, and impulsiveness. That's contradiction, is not subtle, it's loud, and people see it. So what do we do here? We come back to the basics, not the political basis, not the practical ones, the biblical ones in this instance. We remember that Jesus is Lord, not any president. Character still matters, speech still matters, fruit still matters, and we hold that line consistently, not just when it's easy, not just when it benefits our side, but always. And if defending a man requires you to ignore what client what what what Christ clearly taught, then the issue is not political, it's spiritual. Because you cannot baptize behavior that God Himself would rebuke and then expect heaven to co sign on it. It won't work. That's the last thing I'm going to say. Thank you for tuning in, and I'll see you on the next episode.