removal by the 25th amendment was designed primarily for someone who was in a coma or massively debilitated by a stroke, or something like it (it was prompted by president wilson's stroke, after which mrs. wilson became either the voice of the president, or the de facto president, depending on your interpretation of the events.

it was deliberately designed to be very difficult to overturn the results of an election. it was meant for a situation in which virtually everyone agreed the president couldn't carry out the duties of the job.

hence, it needs the following people to sign on:
- vice-president
- majority of the cabinet
- 2/3rds of the house and
- 2/3rds of the senate

that's a tall order, and meant to be.


note, in particular, that removal by impeachment is by far easier, requiring only:
- majority of the house and
- 2/3rds of the senate


the real flaw here is that congress has rendered itself incapable of removing the president by impeachment, which is the obvious method, and would have worked a long time ago had any democrat done a fraction of what donnie has done.

You note, correctly, that implementation of the 25th amendment requires:

"hence, it needs the following people to sign on:
- vice-president
- majority of the cabinet
- 2/3rds of the house and
- 2/3rds of the senate"

The point is simple: three of those require a majority or super-majority of a large, informed, deliberate body.
The fourth is one person, who can prevent the amendment from being implemented even if an overwhelming majority of the other three bodies disagree.
Giving one person that much power is dangerous.
Particularly if that person -- by definition -- is likely to be very close to the President, very close to the Presidency, and quite possibly both.
This is a flaw, and the existence of an ambitious, Machiavellian sycophant like Mike Pence illustrates why.

if he's "machiavellian", why wouldn't he try to become president?

perhaps more important, if the guy who would then become president *doesn't* want to do it, how is it a "flaw" that he needs to sign on to becoming president?



again, the point is, impeachment is the correct route in nearly all cases where the president is conscious and lucid but unfit for office, and that's nominally far easier anyway.

at least in part intended to specifically spark consideration of the 25th.

From what I've read, while the VP's role could definitely be a point of contention between factions, there are more immediate and inevitable issues, such as procedures that are not spelled out in the law and would have to be -- by congress. Additionally, back in the beginning a 2/3 vote of both houses was simply not possible, and it probably still is not.

Not yet. But this is stimulating attention of the electorate, and almost certainly congress, to this issue. So probably not unintentional.