What does the 25th amendment mean?

In light of the Gabby Giffords situation, should the Constitution be amended (like the 25th Amendment) to provide for the disability of members of Congress?

• Could a fair and objective way be formulated to insure the democratic process allows the people's voice to be heard? Giffords is a sudden and stark example of the problem but an amendment would need to be sufficiently broad to cover something like the final years of Strom Thurmond's tenure too.  I do not think it should apply in cases like Anthony Wiener's but you can see from that how difficult it is for Congress to police itself. The 25th Amendment was ratified in the late 1960s and was, I believe, drafted in response to President Eisenhower's heart attack. It has been mentioned when a President goes in for an outpatient procedure such as a colonoscopy and was discussed a little more seriously when President Reagan was shot. The only other time it was seriously needed was when President Wilson had a stroke and his wife became the de facto President. Since modern medical technology has made great strides in saving lives but not necessarily restoring then to full and meaningful productivity,  I am suggesting here that we need a Constitutional Amendment that extends the provisions of the 25th Amendment from the Presidency to all Federal elected officials. I doubt incumbents would be enthusiastic about this so they could be grandfathered under the nonexistent system that we have today.

• Answer:

  [Copied from my comment on Mr. Pangallo's answer.] There's no provision for temporary disabilities that don't result in vacancies. In cases like that of Gabrielle Giffords (gunshot wound), Sen. Tim Johnson (stroke), Jesse Jackson Jr. (psychiatric disorder), Patrick Kennedy (drug rehab), Hale Boggs and Nick Begich (missing), etc., states can't do anything about it. Unless they resign or get expelled (see Art. I § 5), the member stays in office through the end of the term. I suppose the House could expel a comatose or truly deranged member, but that's certainly not an option that's "up to the states." (In the case of Boggs and Begich, the House used the power of judging its own elections to pass a resolution declaring them dead for purposes of being seated in the new session to which they had both been re-elected, thus creating vacancies that Louisiana and Alaska were required to fill through special elections.) One might well prefer a different system, perhaps along the lines of Amdt. XXV, as the questioner suggests. For example, here's a possible system: * Allow the member to declare himself temporarily unable to discharge duties. Also allow the governor (or the legislature, or the Congress, or the rest of the state's congressional delegation, or the members of the legislature whose districts overlap with the member of Congress, or the state's chief justice, or some other person or group) to declare the member temporarily unable to discharge duties. Allow the member to contest such a determination, with the issue determined expeditiously by supermajority vote in the state legislature (or some other body). * When a member is deemed unable to discharge duties, fill the seat temporarily with a replacement who is designated in advance by the member, or by special election, or by the governor, or by the legislature, or in some other way. It's also not so clear that this *should* be left up to the states. This isn't a substantive matter of social or economic policy where a state legislature's local knowledge or values can be brought to bear. And leaving it to the states would risk partisan mischief in some places. Note that the presidential system has a few critical features to prevent such mischief. * First, the VP and cabinet, whom the president typically selects for loyalty, must agree to a forced removal. * Second, the president's successor is normally the VP, so a partisan removal will typically be ineffectual. * Third, if the president objects to removal, a strong supermajority in Congress is required to remove him. * Fourth, if removal is disputed, the president stays in power until Congress settles the issue, so a removal for temporary reasons (for instance, to be able to veto one particular bill) will be ineffectual. I'd prefer a uniform constitutional plan that incorporates similar safeguards, rather than hoping that state legislatures will play nice.As of 4/30/2014, I'm an attorney in New York. But I'm not your...