Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Errors on Mobile version of this Article

I'm not at all sure how to go about this so I am hoping that someone more knowledgeable sees this and can rectify it. The 'Section 3' and 'Section' 4 portions of this article (images) are not displaying correctly when I access it via a mobile device. Tried it on a tablet and a phone. If you click on 'Section 4' a image of the 'Section 3' letter shows up.

I just got on my desktop and it appears to be correct on this platform.

Regards, _Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.7.179.224 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this.

This sounds like a software bug that should be reported. I'm not sure the best way to do that, but I clicked on "Help" under "Contribute" on the left in the standard version of the article. (I don't know how to find it in the mobile version.)

Under "Help:Contents#Report a problem with an article, I read, "Alternatively you can contact us", and clicked, "Contact us". There I read, "You can also email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at info-en-o@wikimedia.org".

To find out where to report a software bug, I looked under "Help:Contents". There I found, "Help:Contents#Help by topic. Under that, I clicked ,"Technical information". That says, "Bug reports ... should be filed on Wikimedia's Phabricator."

However, reporting bugs on Phabricator is not easy, especially if you haven't done it before. Instead, I suggest you "email the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team at info-en-o@wikimedia.org", as previously suggested, and direct them to this discussion on this talk page.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold your horses there, DavidMCEddy. Can you first confirm you can replicate the IP's problem? What is meant by "portions of this article (images)"? The quoted portions aren't images, they're text boxes generated by {{quote box}}. What OS and browser is the IP using? I just browsed the article on mobile (Samsung Browser) and everything appeared to be fine on a quick look. In particular: When I expanded the header "Section 4: Declaration by vice president and principal officers" the correct text appeared. I then accessed the same page in Firefox and Chrome (all three browsers on an Android phone), and while subheaders aren't individually expandable/collapsible there, the text rendered just fine in both browsers. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

I think the coverage of the recently-proposed legislation creating a body to assess incapacity under the Amendment is worth including. I've seen some attempts here, and a reversion of them. The text added strikes me as too embroiled in the present and the whole Trump/anti-Trump factor.

The amendment says "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"... and up to now, it's always been a matter for the Cabinet ("principal officers of the executive departments"); and this is the first (I think) legislation to provide for the other alternative, the "such other body as Congress may by law provide". It ought to be covered, but as apolitically as possible. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the references in the "Refideas" template above could help with that. I no longer have Heinonline, but the Bayh reference looks like a particularly good one. Bayh was one of the earliest proponents of the amendment as Senator; and, since his article was in 1995, it clearly predates all the Trump angst. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a reference to such legislation, but with some caveats.

First, the amendment and the proposed legislation must be correctly described. Some news articles have incorrectly claimed the amendment can be used to remove a President from office and others have referred to the proposed legislation as creating a body that alone could declare a President to be disabled. Nobody can be removed from office under the 25A and under Section 4 the VP must agree that the President is disabled; it can be with a majority of the Cabinet or with a majority of a Congressionally created body, but the VP must agree for Section 4 to be invoked.

Second, we have to keep the text of the proposed legislation in mind. This is so we avoid synthesis. Many people will interpret the proposed legislation and, while it would be accurate to quote those interpretations, we should avoid citing them, because that could easily confuse readings as to the contents of the proposed legislation.

Finally, avoid giving the proposed legislation undue weight. The amount of attention the article gives the proposed legislation should be relative to the amount of attention it receives in Congress, the news media, and academia.

I know most editors will find the above to be obvious, but it's very important that all editors contributing to this article be accurate and neutral in this matter. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if there's more but one removal was done by me for two reasons: 1) undue emphasis on Trump 2) wrong section ("Considered invocations" is just factually incorrect). This would be much more natural to present as a continuation of " Proposal, enactment, and ratification". The basic news ("bill on setting up a committee") is fine if it's noteworthy. I am not sure it is noteworthy yet. CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity on this subject, maybe y'all thought my response to be opposed to including info about the proposed legislation. I'm actually not. I just ask you to find a better place for it in the article than under "considered invocations", since it isn't about considering an actual invocation, it's about changing procedure re: future invocations. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Refspam?

Could you confirm that this edit [1] was intentional, User:Diannaa? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed this edit while removing content added by Lglenhaber, whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to add material sourced to one particular website. It's a form of citation spam to add content as a way to try to drive traffic to a particular website, in this case publicseminar.org. Two different named accounts were doing this yesterday - Helenlctan and Lglenhaber.— Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The article needs a few more sources and a few improved sources. I have added some inline tags. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Requested / Recentism

See Recentism

I have a current request for semi-protection on the article due to the massive amount of traffic increase associated with recent events. A number of unregistered IP users have made significant changes to the article, including new/altered sections and a review is likely warranted at this point.

Please be sure to put up a template should you be making sweeping changes or expansions to an article. OfficerManatee (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. There's been only very minor disruption and it's already under WP:Pending changes. EEng 11:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I somehow missed the current level of protection, my apologies. I'll work on removing my request if possible. OfficerManatee (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Vacant Cabinet Seat(s) Scenario Question

Does anyone have an understanding of how vacant cabinet seats would affect things?

Would those empty seats count as nays? It would give a president quite an incentive to clear out the cabinet before a vote could take place.

Would it just require a majority of the currently filled seats, even if that majority was a very small number? I.e. there are only 3 filled positions and 2 vote yea. (Further: if there are only 2 cabinet members and the VP, could a VP yea vote push a tie over the line?). A president would still have quite a potential advantage if they acted before a cabinet could vote.

Or would vacant cabinet positions not even matter because the next person below the cabinet position is automatically granted the powers of the executive position until someone can be confirmed?

I believe that congress can appoint a body to perform this task, so any sort of shuffling a president could do to cabinet positions would only delay things. KaViGa (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)