President in a Coma

My computer is not letting me search at the moment so I don't know if this has been asked before -

Let us say a President is injured somehow and is left comatose after the 25th Amendment. The official medical word is that s/he may never come out, weighted towards never.

Does the VP become Acting President only?

Do they have to impeach the President for the Acting President to become the actual President?

What if the President is declared brain dead? Does it depend on what state the President is in because of differing defintions of 'legally dead'?

Thoughts?
 
Does each US state have their own definition of death? In the UK it's brain steam death. I guess they'd just be declared incompetent by the cabinet and the VP would continue as acting president until the end of the term, unless they are declared dead in the state that they are situated in.
 
I think under the 25th amendment the person taking office will remain acting President until the President is either clearly dead or able to resign or their term expires
 
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Above is the text of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. For the issue of a President in a coma it seems this will occur -


  1. Vice President asks the Cabinet to sign saying that the President is unfit and s/he is to made Acting President.
  2. They submit it to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, and it takes effect immediately.
Congress only has a say in it if the President sends a letter in writing saying that s/he is able to fulfill his/her duties and then the Acting President and Cabinet (officers may be subject to interpretation apparently and Congress passing a law allowing for some other group to decide has shadowy undertones) have 4 days to submit writing saying the President is still unfit. Then both Houses have to vote within 21 days of a session (and a session must begin within 48 hours).

So, it seems that there is no way for a comatose President to be removed from the office unless declared legally dead. So, if Reagan slipped into a coma when shot, Bush would serve out the remainder of them term as Acting President and Vice President.

Would/could a Acting Pres./Veep resign as Veep and appoint a new VP while still maintaining Acting Presidential powers? Could he appoint an acting Vice President? Or would their simply be no VP again, having to wait for the next election cycle?

What would the public reaction be to such a fiasco?
 
By default, it's the VP + a majority of the cabinet, but Congress can pass a law substituting another group or commission for the cabinet. In either case, the President can appeal to Congress if he disagrees, in which case it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to uphold the decision that the President is incapacitated.

Exact relevant language of the amendment:
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Naturally, a comatose President would have difficulty telling Congress that he's fit for duty.

To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not passed a law replacing the Cabinet as the deciding body, but may have passed a law clarifying the composition of the Cabinet for 25th amendment purposes.

To answer the OP's other questions, yes, the VP is Acting President only in this case. Impeachment is the only Constitutional mechanism for removing a President before his term is up, other than death or resignation, and impeachment probably isn't appropriate since it's hard to argue that being in a coma constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor.

The Constitution does not define "death". I'd expect that Congress could by statute clarify the standards and process for declaring the President dead, so long as the standards and process are within the bounds of common usage of the word "dead" (e.g. brain death could probably be included in the definition, but a law that declares the President dead next time he takes a nap would be unconstitutional). In the absence of such a law, general prevailing practices for declaring death would probably be accepted (for example, if he has a stroke and is taken to a hospital in Virginia, and a doctor there declares death in a manner consistent with Virginia law and practice, then the President is dead).

The legal interpretation could get a bit hairy if it wound up in court somehow, though, since there's conflicting theories about textual interpretation of the Constitution. What I just described is a bit of a loose construction, looking at Constitutional language in light of current usage and practice. A strict textualist/originalist interpretation would look at the generally accepted meaning of the words at the time the amendment was proposed and ratified, so brain death would only count if "dead" was generally understood to include brain death in the mid-1960s. On the other extreme, a "living document" standard would take a more pragmatic approach and interpret any ambiguity in the text in the way that best achieves a just, reasonable outcome by currently prevailing standards, which probably would count irreversible brain death as "death".

By any standard, though, the President would not be considered dead on the basis of "probably will never recover". I'd need to be beyond reasonable dispute that the President's down for the count.
 
Although I cannot find specifics, all US states except NY and NJ can accept 'brain death' as legally dead, Kansas being the first in 1971.

Also, a President diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state' is what I am going for here (not Reagan).

I imagine the social implications would be huge - Terri Schiavo case x1000.
 
Would/could a Acting Pres./Veep resign as Veep and appoint a new VP while still maintaining Acting Presidential powers? Could he appoint an acting Vice President? Or would their simply be no VP again, having to wait for the next election cycle?

What would the public reaction be to such a fiasco?

I am not expert, but I think this is what would happen. Others who know better, please correct me.

The VP is only Acting President as a result of his status as being VP. If he resigns being VP, then he is no longer Acting President. In which case, the next person who is in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, would become Acting President.

In the case of the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Cabinet officials, are required by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 to resign their previous offices in order to remain Acting President. In this case, these people would be Acting Presidents but have no other public office. This is probably done in order to not have someone be in two branches of government at the same time, preserving their separateness and equality, and allowing the Acting President to turn over his responsibilities to someone else in the Cabinet and establish a clear line of succession should he die or become incapacitated.

The 25th Amendment allows a President to nominate a new Vice President whenever a vacancy occurs in that office. In this scenario, the Vice Presidency is not vacant, nor is the VP the President. Therefore, the VP as Acting President cannot nominate someone else to be VP. His successor will be the Speaker of the House unless in the weird event there is no Speaker of the House at the time the VP dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated.

The VP as Acting President will otherwise fulfill the duties of the President until the next election which will elect a new President and VP.
 
I am not expert, but I think this is what would happen. Others who know better, please correct me.

The VP is only Acting President as a result of his status as being VP. If he resigns being VP, then he is no longer Acting President. In which case, the next person who is in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, would become Acting President.

In the case of the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Cabinet officials, are required by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 to resign their previous offices in order to remain Acting President. In this case, these people would be Acting Presidents but have no other public office. This is probably done in order to not have someone be in two branches of government at the same time, preserving their separateness and equality, and allowing the Acting President to turn over his responsibilities to someone else in the Cabinet and establish a clear line of succession should he die or become incapacitated.

The 25th Amendment allows a President to nominate a new Vice President whenever a vacancy occurs in that office. In this scenario, the Vice Presidency is not vacant, nor is the VP the President. Therefore, the VP as Acting President cannot nominate someone else to be VP. His successor will be the Speaker of the House unless in the weird event there is no Speaker of the House at the time the VP dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated.

The VP as Acting President will otherwise fulfill the duties of the President until the next election which will elect a new President and VP.

Yeah, but the VP is a legislative job in and of itself. I talked about this the other day, for as long as the VP is serving as Acting President, he can't fulfill the constitutional role of Vice President (tie-breaking vote in Senate).

So I think a VP would be perfectly able to resign his Vice Presidency while Acting President. The Vice President (let's call him "Steve") became Acting President during the Coma President's incapacitation. Acting President Steve has all the capabilities of the President and can appoint a new Vice President to succeed himself (upon his resignation).

It doesn't change the fact that he was Vice President when the Coma President became comatose. With all the hulabaloo in changing Presidents, and the fact that the 25th provides for the resignation of *every* other office (not just Speaker and PPT, but all the Secretaries), I think the Attorney General will back Steve up on this. And Congress will agree because it helps keep the branches seperate.

They might make new legislation to help spell it out though.
 
Would/could a Acting Pres./Veep resign as Veep and appoint a new VP while still maintaining Acting Presidential powers?

No.


Could he appoint an acting Vice President? Or would their simply be no VP again, having to wait for the next election cycle?

Congress could pass a law creating the office of "Acting Vice President". Otherwise, it's the normal cycle.

What would the public reaction be to such a fiasco?

Depends if any serious problems arose during the Acting Presidency. If so there'd be pressure for further reform. Otherwise it's a nine days wonder, acceped as a matter of course on the tenth day.
 
Note also the 25th Amendment mentions only the VP, there is all kinds of space for mischief if the VP office were vacant

True, and this kinda bothered me in the West Wing storyline where the Speaker of the House became Acting President.

Although it looks like the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (still the active statute for the line of succession) does explicitly endorse the West Wing scenario (in default of the VP, the next eligible person in the statutory line of succession become Acting President when an AP is needed).

The constitutional basis for the PSA of 1947 is a clause in Article 2, section 1:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
This clause was partially superseded by the 25th Amendment (specifically, hardcoding the procedure for declaring the VP as AP, and clarifying when the VP is AP and when he actually assumes the Presidency), but not repealed, so presumably it still stands in cases not covered by the 25th Amendment.
 
Yeah, but the VP is a legislative job in and of itself. I talked about this the other day, for as long as the VP is serving as Acting President, he can't fulfill the constitutional role of Vice President (tie-breaking vote in Senate).

I disagree completely.

The VP is clearly part of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative. That he has a function in the legislature in cases of a tie in the Senate, does not mean he is part of the Legislative branch anymore than the President's veto power implies he is part of the legislature.

The idea that the VP's job is primarily legislative is false. His primary job is to do nothing. How often do ties happen in the Senate? Not very often. The VP can continue to do that and still take on the responsibilities of the presidency. So there is no concern that he will be overtaxed by work.

Since the VP would cast any tie breaking vote on behalf of the President anyway, it changes nothing in terms of equality between the branches. The Executive Branch does not have anymore power than it did before.

In fact, there have been several cases already where the VP has become Acting President. It's usually because the President will be medically operated upon and therefore is in no position to fulfill his duties. There was never any constitutional crisis because he might conceivably have to vote in the Senate.

If lots of people think like you, this might mean it becomes an issue for the courts to decide. Personally, I think the reasoning is very weak.
 
Top