Governing the Ungoverning: The Critical Importance of Joe Biden’s Post-Presidential Legal Removal for Mental Incapacity
By Grok, xAI (Prepared for LiesHunter.Com)
The question of a president’s mental capacity to govern has long been a sensitive yet critical issue in American democracy. The hypothetical scenario of pursuing a legal removal of Joe Biden post-presidency for reasons of mental incapacity—an unprecedented and legally complex proposition—raises profound questions about governance, accountability, and the stability of democratic institutions. While the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism for addressing presidential incapacity during a term, no clear legal framework exists for post-presidential removal. This article explores the potential importance of such an action, its implications for trust in government, and the broader consequences for the rule of law, framed under the lens of “governing the ungoverning.”
The Constitutional Void: No Clear Path for Post-Presidential Removal
The U.S. Constitution is silent on mechanisms for addressing a former president’s mental incapacity after their term ends. The 25th Amendment, enacted in 1967, allows for the temporary or permanent transfer of power if a sitting president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This process involves the vice president and a majority of the cabinet or a congressionally appointed body declaring the president incapacitated, with provisions for appeal to Congress. However, this mechanism applies only to a sitting president, not a former one. Once a president leaves office, their official powers cease, rendering the 25th Amendment inapplicable.
A post-presidential legal removal for mental incapacity would thus require an entirely new legal framework, likely established through congressional legislation or judicial interpretation. Such a process could involve retroactively questioning decisions made during Biden’s presidency (January 20, 2021–January 20, 2025) on grounds of mental unfitness. The significance of pursuing this lies in its potential to address perceived governance failures, but it also risks setting a dangerous precedent for politicizing mental health and undermining democratic transitions.
Why It Matters: Accountability and Public Trust
The hypothetical pursuit of Joe Biden’s post-presidential removal for mental incapacity could be framed as an attempt to hold a former leader accountable for decisions made during a period of alleged diminished capacity. Proponents might argue that if evidence emerged—post-tenure—showing that Biden’s mental state significantly impaired his ability to govern, a legal reckoning could serve several critical purposes:
Restoring Public Trust: If credible evidence suggested that Biden’s mental incapacity led to mismanagement—such as flawed economic policies, foreign policy missteps, or improper appointments (e.g., to the Federal Reserve Board)—a legal process could validate public concerns. For instance, the appointment of four Federal Reserve governors (Philip Jefferson, Michael Barr, Lisa Cook, and Adriana Kugler) during Biden’s term could be scrutinized if critics argued that incapacity influenced these choices, potentially affecting monetary policy for decades.
Safeguarding Democratic Integrity: A legal mechanism to address post-presidential incapacity could deter future leaders from clinging to power despite cognitive decline. It would signal that the American system prioritizes competence and accountability, even after a term ends. This is particularly relevant in an era of increasing public skepticism about the fitness of aging leaders, as seen in debates during the 2020 and 2024 election cycles.
Clarifying Historical Record: A formal process could provide a definitive assessment of Biden’s presidency, separating fact from speculation. If mental incapacity were legally established, it could reframe controversial decisions—such as the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 or domestic policy gridlock—as products of impaired judgment rather than deliberate intent, potentially reshaping historical narratives.
The Risks: Precedent, Polarization, and Abuse
While the importance of such a process lies in its potential to uphold accountability, the risks are equally significant. Pursuing a post-presidential removal would venture into uncharted legal and political territory, with far-reaching consequences:
Weaponizing Mental Health: Establishing a precedent for retroactively challenging a president’s mental capacity could open the door to partisan abuse. Future administrations might use similar processes to target political opponents, framing policy disagreements as evidence of mental unfitness. This could erode the independence of the presidency and politicize medical diagnoses, particularly in an already polarized climate.
Undermining Democratic Transitions: Peaceful transitions of power are a cornerstone of American democracy. Retroactively questioning a president’s fitness could destabilize this process, casting doubt on the legitimacy of past elections and administrations. For example, if Biden’s Federal Reserve appointments were challenged, it could lead to legal battles over the validity of monetary policies enacted during his term, creating economic uncertainty.
Legal and Practical Barriers: No existing law allows for the “removal” of a former president, as they no longer hold office. Any attempt to create such a mechanism would face constitutional scrutiny, likely requiring a Supreme Court ruling to define its legality. Moreover, proving mental incapacity retroactively—without clear, contemporaneous medical evidence—would be extraordinarily difficult and could be dismissed as speculative.
The Broader Implications: Governing the Ungoverning
The phrase “governing the ungoverning” encapsulates the challenge of addressing perceived leadership failures after the fact. In Biden’s case, the importance of a post-presidential removal process would lie in its attempt to reconcile the tension between democratic accountability and the finality of a completed term. It would force a reckoning with difficult questions: How does a democracy handle a leader whose capacity was questioned but not addressed during their tenure? What mechanisms can ensure governance remains effective without undermining the will of the electorate?
The case also highlights the need for proactive measures during a presidency. The 25th Amendment’s underutilization—due to its high political and procedural barriers—suggests a gap in the system. For instance, during Biden’s term, no public record indicates that Vice President Kamala Harris or the cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment, despite occasional speculation about Biden’s cognitive health in media and public discourse. A post-presidential process could underscore the importance of reforming existing mechanisms to address incapacity in real time.
Conclusion: A Delicate Balance
The hypothetical pursuit of Joe Biden’s post-presidential legal removal for mental incapacity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it could reinforce accountability, restore public trust, and clarify the historical record by addressing governance failures linked to cognitive decline. On the other, it risks politicizing mental health, destabilizing democratic norms, and creating legal chaos. The significance of such an action lies not only in its immediate impact on Biden’s legacy but also in its potential to reshape how America governs the ungoverning—those moments when leadership falters but the system must endure.
For LiesHunter.Com and its readers, the takeaway is clear: while the idea of post-presidential removal is compelling as a check on power, it demands a careful balance between justice and restraint. Without robust legal safeguards and bipartisan consensus, such a process could do more to ungovern than to govern. As the nation navigates an era of heightened scrutiny over leadership fitness, the conversation must focus on strengthening existing mechanisms—like the 25th Amendment—rather than creating new ones that could fracture the republic’s foundation.
