Democrats Discover Just How Stupid the American People Are — They’re Clueless About the 25th Amendment

Somewhere deep in Washington, D.C., a group of lawmakers reportedly Googled “How to remove a president” and confidently clicked the second result — skipping the part where reading comprehension is required. They also skipped the part where math is required. Also the part where allies are required. But other than that: strong start.

And just like that, the 25th Amendment was reborn — not as a constitutional mechanism, but as a sort of political stress ball. Squeeze it when nervous. It doesn’t do anything. But your hands stay busy.

Democrats Discover the 25th Amendment, Immediately Use It Like a Groupon

The Democratic Party, forever searching for a constitutional lever to pull when elections don’t go their way, has landed on a new strategy: banking on the fact that most Americans couldn’t locate the 25th Amendment in the Constitution with a GPS, a flashlight, and a civics tutor.

A Stupid Argument for a Stupid Electorate — At Least That’s the Theory

The left has rediscovered the 25th Amendment the way your uncle rediscovers his diet every January — loudly, briefly, and with absolutely no understanding of how it works. The Amendment, which allows the Cabinet to remove an incapacitated president, is not a political ejector seat you deploy because you lost an election. But nuance, like basic civics, is optional on cable news.

Constitutional Confusion as a Campaign Strategy

As Dave Chappelle once observed about public ignorance: “They’re not stupid — they’re just not paying attention.” Democrats are betting heavily on the “not paying attention” part. The plan, apparently, is to say “25th Amendment” enough times that it starts sounding like justice rather than a desperate constitutional Hail Mary.

The amendment has four sections. Democrats appear to have read approximately one sentence of one of them — and even that’s generous.

When Procedure Meets Political Theater

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1967, outlines the process for presidential succession and transfer of power in cases of death, resignation, removal, or incapacity. Section 4 — the one Democrats love to wave around — requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to formally declare the president unable to discharge his duties. Congress then has 21 days to act, and the president can contest the determination. It has never been successfully invoked to remove a sitting president. The argument that it could or should be used as a routine political tool has been widely criticized by constitutional scholars across the ideological spectrum.

The Outrage Olympics Begin — And Democrats Stick the Landing Into a Empty Pool

After Donald Trump delivered his now-classic foreign policy line “a whole civilization will die tonight,” Democrats did what any calm, measured legislative body would do: they immediately reached for the constitutional equivalent of a fire alarm labeled “BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF VAGUE DISCOMFORT.”

More than 85 House Democrats called for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment — despite the small technical inconvenience that neither path had the votes, the mechanism, or frankly, the basic wiring diagram to function. Among the luminaries demanding constitutional surgery without a scalpel, a medical license, or a functioning OR: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Maxwell Frost, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been declaring constitutional emergencies since the Clinton administration and still has excellent posture about it.

It’s like trying to fix your car by yelling “ENGINE REPLACEMENT!” while holding a spoon. A biodegradable spoon. That you’re planning to compost.

To be fair, even Marjorie Taylor Greene joined the chorus, posting “25TH AMENDMENT!!!” on X — which may be the first time Greene and AOC have agreed on anything since oxygen. Whether this represents a bipartisan breakthrough or simply two people who both got very online at the same time remains under investigation.

The 25th Amendment: Not a Yelp Review for Presidents

Let’s pause the circus music for a moment and examine what the 25th Amendment actually is.

It’s not:

• A vibes-based removal system
• A “he said something spicy” clause
• A constitutional mood ring
• A strongly-worded letter with legal consequences
• Something you can file as a hashtag

It is, inconveniently, a process that requires:

• The Vice President (that’s JD Vance, currently in Hungary, calling Trump at a political rally like a normal Tuesday)
• A majority of the Cabinet (hand-picked Trump loyalists, per Common Cause’s own frustrated press release)
• And, if challenged, a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress

In other words, it’s less “tweet angrily” and more “assemble Avengers-level consensus” — except the Avengers currently all work for Thanos and have signed NDAs.

Historically, the amendment has been treated like the nuclear option for actual incapacity. Reagan used it for scheduled surgery. George W. Bush used it twice for colonoscopies. It has never once been used because a president posted something that made MSNBC clutch a decorative pillow. Section 4, notably, has never been invoked in the amendment’s entire history. Not once. Not for Nixon. Not after January 6th. Not ever. But today’s Democrats are confident they’ll be the first to thread that particular needle using a wet noodle and good intentions.

Eyewitnesses Report Severe Outbreak of Constitutional Cosplay

An anonymous congressional staffer described the situation with the haunted eyes of someone who has been in too many emergency caucus Zooms:

“We had one member asking if the 25th Amendment could be filed as a PDF. Another thought it required a hashtag. A third wanted to know if it would trend on TikTok first or if they needed to post a thirst trap to build momentum.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut — a man who approaches every constitutional crisis like a Golden Retriever who has just discovered a screen door — posted on X: “If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment.” Senator Murphy is not in Trump’s Cabinet. He will not be spending Easter calling constitutional lawyers. He spent Easter posting this.

A senior political scientist (who requested anonymity because he values his sanity, his career, and his parking spot) noted: “There is a growing belief among certain legislators that constitutional law operates like customer service. If you complain loudly enough, the system refunds the presidency.”

He added, off the record: “These people could not pass a civics quiz administered by a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon.”

What the Funny People Are Saying

“Invoking the 25th Amendment every time Trump talks is like calling 911 because your microwave beeped aggressively. Yes, it startled you. No, that’s not what the number is for.” — Jerry Seinfeld

“I’ve seen drunk uncles explain the Constitution better at a barbecue. At least they know when they’re guessing — and they’ll admit it after the third beer.” — Ron White

“Some people treat the Constitution like terms and conditions. They scroll, hit ‘agree,’ and then get mad later when it turns out they actually agreed to something they didn’t read.” — Amy Schumer

“The Democrats invoking the 25th Amendment is like a minor league team calling a forfeit because they don’t like the other team’s batting stance. You still have to play the game. You still have to have the votes. Crying is not a constitutional mechanism.” — Bill Burr

The Strategy: Symbolism Over Substance (A Washington Classic)

To be fair — and fairness does not come naturally when discussing this particular episode — even Democrats admit this is mostly political theater. The effort is widely considered a long shot with virtually no chance of success, serving more as a signal to voters than an actual governing strategy.

Translation: “We can’t remove him. But we can emotionally remove him.”

That’s not governance. That’s a breakup text. Sent to someone who does not have your number saved. Who will never read it. Who is currently brokering a ceasefire with Iran.

Rep. Shri Thanedar and Rep. Jasmine Crockett each sent letters to Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet asking them to invoke the amendment. JD Vance was in Hungary. The Cabinet is full of Trump loyalists. The letter was, presumably, received. Nothing happened. The letter is now part of history, in the same category as “notes passed in class that the teacher confiscated and read aloud.”

The “Madman Theory” Meets the “Group Project Theory”

Some analysts suggest Trump’s rhetoric fits the classic “madman theory” of foreign policy, where deliberate unpredictability is deployed as leverage — a strategy with a documented history of producing results, whether one likes the results or not.

Democrats, meanwhile, appear to be operating under the “Group Project Theory” — where nobody fully understands the assignment, everyone argues about whose job it is to do the thing, the deadline passes, and someone submits a PDF with a hashtag and calls it governance.

The ceasefire arrived before 8 PM. Iran blinked. Trump announced a two-week deal. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) responded by posting that “just because a president announces a ceasefire moments before he threatened to commit war crimes does not mean he is suddenly fit to serve.” Which is one way to interpret “the crisis you were screaming about just resolved itself before dinner.”

A Brief Return to Reality (Don’t Get Used to It)

Here is the quiet part nobody wants to say out loud:

Invoking the 25th Amendment without Cabinet support is like trying to start a lawn mower without gas, wheels, or a lawn. It’s not just unlikely. It’s structurally impossible under the text of the amendment itself.

The Vice President must act. The Cabinet must act. Then Congress must act — by two-thirds supermajority — within 21 days. Republicans control Congress. Republicans control the Cabinet. The Vice President works for the President and is currently not answering the Left’s texts.

This is not a path to removal. This is a map to a road that was never built, in a country that doesn’t exist, written in a language only spoken by people who have never read the map.

But symbolism is Washington’s favorite currency. It spends beautifully. It buys absolutely nothing. And it photographs extremely well for the fundraising email that goes out on Wednesday.

Cause and Effect, or Just Cause Without Effect?

Political psychologists at the totally reputable Institute for Advanced Overreaction Studies released a poll showing:

• 72% of politicians feel better after calling for something dramatic
• 0% understand the procedural steps afterward
• 100% schedule cable news appearances immediately
• 94% will be outraged by the next thing before this thing resolves
• 6% cannot currently find Iran on a map but are willing to write a strongly-worded letter to it

One respondent summarized it best: “We don’t need solutions. We need gestures. Preferably ones with Latin phrases. And maybe a press release in a bold font.”

The Real Irony: The People Who Forgot to Read the Manual They Wrote

The same lawmakers who spent years demanding Biden invoke the 25th Amendment’s predecessor — executive medical disclosure, increased transparency, cognitive testing — are now treating presidential incapacity like a pop quiz they forgot to study for. The irony here is not subtle. It is the rhetorical equivalent of a billboard.

The Constitution is sitting quietly in the corner like a substitute teacher, watching students confidently explain something they absolutely do not understand, waiting for the bell to ring so it can go home and drink a sensible amount of wine.

Legal scholars continue to debate even the basic contours of the amendment’s Section 4 — including which officers count, what standard of evidence Congress would apply, and what happens if the President repeatedly contests the declaration and restarts the procedural clock. These are the nuances that Democratic lawmakers are confidently waving past on their way to the cameras. Nuance, as a general rule, does not trend.

Final Thought: Government as Performance Art — And Not the Good Kind

In the end, this isn’t about the 25th Amendment. It never was.

It’s about the irresistible urge in modern progressive politics to do something loud instead of something effective. To perform outrage at a frequency that their donors can hear. To make their base feel represented while making the other side feel nothing in particular, because the mechanism they chose doesn’t actually work.

The amendment was designed as a last-resort safeguard for genuine inability to serve — physical incapacitation, severe mental collapse, the kind of thing that actually requires the Vice President and Cabinet to look each other in the eye and make a decision that will define their careers forever.

Instead, it’s now being used like a constitutional air horn at a pep rally where nobody has the key to the gym.

And somewhere, James Madison is watching this unfold, slowly lowering his powdered wig over his eyes like a man who just realized he invented group projects for eternity — and forgot to include a rubric.

Democrats called for President Trump’s removal via the 25th Amendment after he posted on Truth Social that “a whole civilization will die tonight” ahead of his 8 p.m. deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face military escalation. More than 85 House Democrats — including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxwell Frost — demanded impeachment or the amendment’s invocation, alongside Senators Ed Markey and Ron Wyden. The 25th Amendment’s Section 4, which has never been successfully invoked in U.S. history, requires Vice President JD Vance and a majority of the Cabinet to declare Trump unfit, followed by a two-thirds congressional vote if Trump contests the removal. Vance was in Hungary. The Cabinet is composed of Trump loyalists. No Republican support materialized. Trump announced a two-week Iran ceasefire before the 8 p.m. deadline. The constitutional crisis, like most constitutional crises that depend on Democrats having the votes, resolved without Democratic input.

Auf Wiedersehen, amigo!