We the People: Succession of Power
47:45 Share

Hey, it's a Martinez. I work on a new show and yeah, the news can feel like a lot on any given day, but you just can't ignore the noticias when important world changing events are happening. So that is where the up first podcast comes in every single morning in under 15 minutes, we take the news and boil it down to three essential stories. You can keep up without feeling stressed out. Listen to the up first podcast from NPR.

Well, it depends on where they're placed. They can be wherever you want them. Uh-huh. Four, the pockets...

On a warm day in November 1963, local Dallas TV station WFAA was broadcasting a show about women's fashion. There's zippers up the side so that the jacket will fit tightly around the hips, keeping that straight, sleek look that it should have. When suddenly, out of nowhere, the show was stopped. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You'll excuse the fact that I'm out of breath, but...

When the broadcast came back on air, a man appeared on screen looking pale and in shock.

He says... President Kennedy and Governor John Connolly have been cut down by assassins' bullets in downtown Dallas. The American president, John F. Kennedy, along with the governor of Texas, were shot. Newsrooms were in chaos trying to figure out what happened. Mr. Kennedy was struck in the head. The first reports say that President Kennedy has been seriously wounded by this shooting. President Kennedy is reported to be fighting for his life in a Dallas hospital, but reports conflict...

For about an hour, there was no official announcement of whether the president or vice president were dead or alive. John Feerick had become obsessed with the possibility of a moment just like this, but he wasn't expecting it so soon.

Today, John is a professor at the law school he graduated from.

He's 88 years old. I am most likely the oldest professor full-time at Fordham Law School. But back in 1961, two years before Dallas, John was an idealistic, newly-minted attorney on a mission to convince people that something essential was missing from the Constitution. Clear instructions for what should happen if a U.S. president was unable to do his job. He researched it for years.

One of the most critical and intriguing constitutional questions ever presented for solution is what happens when the President of the United States becomes incapable of discharging the powers and duties of his office. This is an excerpt from an article John published in the Fordham Law Review in October 1963. Does the Vice President become President for the remainder of the term or does he merely act as President during the period of inability?

The Constitution is not explicit. John focuses in on Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution. It goes like this. 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

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 president shall be elected.

Okay, now to translate. What that basically means is that if the president dies or resigns or is unable to serve the role of president, then the vice president would serve in his place. And if the vice president can't serve, then Congress has to decide which officer of government should step in as president.

But that's about it. No more specifics. Now, at the time, this issue was not exactly top of mind for most Americans because John's article came out in October 1963, a time when President Kennedy, the youngest president in U.S. history, seemed vital and healthy.

But John had lots of questions. Like, who decides when a president is unable to serve? What happens next? Is the transfer of power to the vice president temporary or permanent? What if there is no vice president? To him, the fact that the current president was young and healthy, that the questions didn't seem urgent, made it the ideal time to hash it out. I didn't want the article to just go on a library shelf. So he started mailing out copies.

He sent them everywhere, to current and former politicians. He even sent one to the White House. I had a response from an assistant to President Kennedy on November 13th. It went like this. The president has received your letter and asked me to thank you for sending him the accompanied copy of your article. An acknowledgment. Not bad. But then the personal responses started coming in. He got one from the attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy's brother. It says as follows. Then he hears from Richard Nixon.

This is a subject in which I am most interested. You aimed high. Well, I didn't know better. And it didn't stop with politicians. He wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times. In all of these letters, he emphasized, this problem has come up before in our history, more than once, and Congress has never solved it. Presidents are mortal. President Garfield's shooting. President Wilson's stroke.

and President Eisenhower's heart attack rendered the respective president temporarily unable to exercise the powers and duties of his office. Despite this, Congress has consistently failed the American people by not acting to eliminate the possibility of a gap in the executive because of the confusion existing over the meaning of the succession provision of the Constitution.

In the end, John didn't just want a discussion. He wanted more. He wanted a constitutional amendment. I think I had an expectation that people who had an interest in the subject would examine the article and with the hope that it would make a case for reform. Six days later, the president was assassinated.

November 22nd, 1963. John F. Kennedy became the eighth U.S. president to die in office. Suddenly, the alarms John Feerick had been raising became very loud.

And John believed that then, finally, someone would do something about it. I'm Ramteen Arablui. And I'm Rand Abdel-Fattah. You're listening to ThruLine from NPR. Written into the Constitution is a way to change it. But we do that less and less. On this episode of our ongoing series, We the People, the story behind one of the last amendments to the Constitution, the 25th, and the man who got it done.

Hi, this is Mike from Brno in the Czech Republic, and you're listening to ThruLine, the class act of this program. Part one, the question of succession. Ready? All right. I'm recording. All right. I'm ready. You're always ready. I'm a true professional.

All right. So you and through line producer extraordinaire Lawrence Wu went to Fordham University to interview our main character in this story, John Feerick.

All right, so take me through what happens when you get there. It was a cold, cold day. The worst. And I remember I took the subway and I met Lawrence in the lobby. Okay. And then, you know, we turned on the recorder. As you have to do. And then we got on the elevator, rode up to, I don't remember which floor it is. But when we got off the elevator, I think it was John's assistant.

She very nicely walked us to his office. And from the moment that we walked into the office, honestly, this is going to sound cheesy, but it was like walking into a time capsule. Hello! Hi!

Hi, I'm Run. Have we met before? We have not met before, but... What's your name? Run. R-U-N? R-U-N-D, like run with a D. Oh, yeah, nice to see you. Like, you look around, and it was like...

All around. I mean, it was interesting. Half of the office was covered with like framed pictures of him and like Congress people and lawyers and other people that he'd worked with over the years. And then the other half of the office was covered with pictures of like his grandkids. And and then, you know, he had like all these law books.

you know, along the wall. And did it seem like he was eager because people aren't just knocking on his door every day wanting to talk about this story? I think it had been a while. Huh. Yeah, I think it had been a while. He's been at Fordham, you know, like for so much of his, you know, academic life. And obviously that's where he got his start. That's where he worked on the 25th Amendment. Because it's so special to be here, right? I mean, Fordham is where it all began. Thank you.

John Feerick was born in 1936 in New York. His parents had arrived in the U.S. not long before.

My parents were immigrants and no formal education. I was the firstborn. John experienced a similar upbringing that I and many of you listening experienced. I grew in understanding of the importance of getting an education and in using it to make a difference. Despite that pressure, John wasn't a good student as a kid, no matter how hard he tried. But his parents weren't accepting any excuses.

It was a slow start for me in grammar school. And my father insisted one summer that I not go out until I understood math much better than my grades indicated. Whatever his parents did, it worked. In fact, he did well enough to get a scholarship to go to Fordham University in the Bronx, New York, a school just a short subway ride away from where he grew up.

He lived between two worlds, one at college and one back in his blue-collar neighborhood. He went to classes during the day and worked shifts at a local supermarket in the evenings. I felt a real commitment working in the supermarket, be as good as you can be, and serving people at the cash register and putting food on shelves. Even with the job, he found time to be a part of Fordham's student government.

I was vice president of my class and also the student body. That service experience was very important because I saw that you could make differences. And it was in the college student government where John had his first experience with the problem of succession of power in the most nerdy, dramatic kind of way.

I remember when I was vice president of the student body at Fordham College in my last year, I had to deal with the inability of a newly elected president. Inability, as in the president is unable to serve. What would that mean? A medical issue. He had a medical issue. And he

And as soon as he was elected, he resigned. The president of the student government stepped down, and suddenly everyone had an opinion about who should succeed him. Some people called for a new election. But remember, John was the student body vice president. I said that under the Constitution, the vice president becomes the president, and it should not be a new election. A standoff.

But Fordham had a student court, I'm not joking here, that would decide these kinds of matters. And they sustained the position I had taken, that the student constitution provided for succession. That's dramatic for a student body like Count's. It's almost like a mock trial of what would come later a little bit.

So, John became president of the student government because the student constitution spelled out that process. President resigns, then vice president becomes president. In this case, John Feerick. And he found this whole process really motivating. It became clear to me by the time I got into my last year of college that going to law school would be very supportive of an interest in going into elective politics.

and making a difference. So John applied for law school at Fordham University and got in. He thrived there. He was the editor of the school's law review. But he didn't forget about presidential succession. He couldn't. It was all over the news. Eisenhower seemed perfectly healthy in these films made in 1955, just before his sudden heart attack. His illness revealed, once again, America's unpreparedness to deal adequately with such an emergency.

In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a major heart attack. In the Denver church where Ike worshipped, in churches and synagogues all across a shock nation, America joined in spirit with Vice President Nixon, facing grave burdens in a situation not adequately defined by constitutional law. The president was hospitalized, and right away, people started asking, who's going to run the White House while he's on the mend?

Well, first place they might go is the Constitution to figure it out. Okay, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution says that if the president is no longer able to discharge his duties because of removal from office, death, resignation, or inability, then the vice president assumes the powers and duties of the president. Okay, so then what happens?

People quickly realized that the Constitution didn't say anything beyond what was in Article 2. For example, would the Vice President just be a caretaker until a new election was held? Or would he be the legitimate president? And so with President Eisenhower's mounting medical troubles, it wasn't clear who was going to decide if and when the Vice President, Richard Nixon, would take over his duties.

The two men eventually did work out a deal: Nixon would serve as acting president until Eisenhower returned. Disaster averted, but John Feerick wasn't satisfied. I saw that there was a problem of inability. Remember, John had experience with this kind of thing, and he loved it. It tied to interest in the Constitution.

So I started to collect information. That is an understatement. John began obsessively researching the history of this issue. Even after he graduated and got a job as a lawyer, he kept going. I used to go to the Fordham Library at the Rose Hill campus. And if it was a holiday, I worked on it.

Whenever I could, I was putting in a lot of hours at the law firm. And I wanted to take a look at the history in terms of the problem itself. What kinds of historical examples were you coming across as you were digging into the research? Woodward Wilson, James Garfield. Okay, here we're going to stop. And I'm going to take you on a fun journey into the past cases where a president died and there was some lack of clarity about who would take on their role.

Let's start with President William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States. His inauguration was on a cold, rainy day in 1841. Standing outside in the rain, he gave the longest inaugural speech in American history. He spoke for nearly two hours.

Anyway, he came down with pneumonia and died a month later. His vice president, John Tyler, quickly assumed his office. He was the first vice president to become president after the president died. It set up a new precedent because up to that point, no president had died in office. And again, there was no explicit instructions in the Constitution about what to do.

But interestingly, President Tyler never appointed a vice president and himself nearly died in a sailing accident three years later. And then there was President James Garfield, the 20th president of the United States. He was shot at a train station in Washington, D.C., in July 1881. He survived but was severely injured and bedridden for weeks. He wasn't dead and people tried everything to keep him alive.

Even Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, tried his newly created metal detector to help doctors try to find where the bullet was lodged in the president's body. But it didn't work. And Garfield couldn't really function as president as an infection slowly destroyed his body.

Garfield ultimately lived for 80 days. And the entire time, many people in the country wondered who should serve as president. There was basically no acting president until Garfield died and the vice president took his place. And finally, there was another famous case, this time from the 20th century.

In 1919, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, had a massive stroke, which incapacitated him for the remainder of his presidency. Many historians believe his wife, Edith Wilson, was effectively acting as president in his absence for nearly a year and a half until the end of his term. Through his research, John Feerick saw all these cases and realized that even though this problem had come up repeatedly in U.S. history,

No one had ever crafted a permanent solution. I was shocked by that. And so he decided he was going to channel that shock into writing an article about it. And of course, being a former editor of the Law Review, I had a pathway to writing about

The problem of presidential inability, and that became my most important writing. His October 1963 article in Fordham Law Review. It was called The Problem of Presidential Inability, Will Congress Ever Solve It? The Problem of Presidential Inability, Will Congress Ever Solve It? Question mark. Question mark. Well, I guess this is the thing, right? Because, you know, you were writing it at a time when

John F. Kennedy is in office, a young, you know, strapping president. And I guess I wonder, why did you think this was so important? Like you it's because it sounds like me, you were spending your weekends, your holidays working on this question. Why did you feel like the average person should even care? Why did you think that that was an important thing?

problem to solve. The articles I read and the learning that I developed indicated that there was really a major problem here, and they just couldn't get their hands around how to solve it. And what in the most simple terms was the problem for the average person? And what could the potential consequences be of not solving it, I guess? Well, I guess one way to look at it is

Go back to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention was the big meeting that lasted the entire summer of 1787, where a group of delegates from the American states met in Philadelphia and wrote the U.S. Constitution.

And they saw this coming. This problem of presidential succession that John was tackling almost 200 years later, the delegates actually discussed it. At some point in the convention, John Dickinson of Delaware, as I recall, says, what is an ability? He says that who determines what is an inability? Yeah.

And he's asking this in like 1787. 1787. And so what is an inability? What happens in the case of an inability, so to speak? And who determines it? And nobody answered him. What is the threat to the country potentially? Or what is the threat hanging over the country in the event of an inability of the president? I wrote the article at a time of potential nuclear war.

And if something happened to a president who is still alive. After an assassination attempt or illness, for example. The consequences for the country would have been enormous. It would have been a crisis. A flash from Dallas. Coming up, a president is shot and John goes to Washington. This is Rachel from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and you're listening to ThruLine on NPR.

This message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify. Start selling with Shopify today. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or IPO ready, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run, and grow your business without the struggle. Go to shopify.com slash NPR. Part 2. The Road to an Amendment.

On November 22nd, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead, John Feerick was only two years out of law school. I remember being at a meeting with

as a young lawyer and receiving a call telling me the president had just been shot. We were all just in a state of shock hearing that. Even before that day, John was already laser-focused on the question of what would happen if a president suddenly couldn't serve. For about an hour, there was no official word if JFK was alive or dead. In that uncertainty, John gamed out the options. I clearly would have been disabled.

And we would have had a crisis on our hands with the ambiguity about the status of a vice president in a case of inability. Does he take the office for the rest of the term of that president, even if the president recovers? Or does he be just an acting president for the duration of the inability? And Arthur Kroc, a New York Times journalist who'd read John's article about this issue, publishes an article and makes reference to my article.

In totally shock when somebody told me that I was quoted in the New York Times, that they ought to crack. And then I started getting calls.

Because suddenly, it looked like you almost predicted. Yeah, my life changed.

because somehow I started to get requests for the article. Things started moving fast, and it became clear that John's writing and ideas could play a role in whatever came next. I realized that elective politics was not for me, but law reform and communicating through writings, through talks, would be who I am.

Just a few weeks after President Kennedy's assassination, the American Bar Association, the ABA, announced a meeting called Special Conference on Presidential Inability. The lawyers were ready to dive in. It was scheduled for January 1964, and John was invited to be a part of it.

The staff of the ABA, they had seen the reference to the article, and they recommended this young lawyer in New York who wrote this article that was quoted in the Times should be invited to be a member of the group. All of the lawyers invited to the conference were given background materials in preparation. And the first document to read is my article. Our strength and survival depend on our having an able leader at the head of the executive branch at all times.

The continuity of the executive should never be in doubt. At present, it is. You had done all the work already, basically. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It was complete. The article was out there. A constitutional crisis exists. It is time that Congress act to resolve it once and for all.

So John goes to the ABA meeting in January. He's sitting around with all these lawyers. One of them was even an elected politician, Democratic Senator Birch Bayh from Indiana. And they've all read his article. And obviously, they have some questions for John.

So basically, can the president decide himself when he's not able to do the job anymore? Or should someone else make that call? Should the vice president? This was tricky territory. And...

In other words, if it's just up to the VP to decide if the president is fit to serve, then what's stopping them from using that power to basically take over the presidency? The biggest one being, we need a constitutional amendment.

The ABA lawyers, including John, sketched out what this could look like. First, they said that if the president is unable to serve, then power goes to the vice president, who will serve either to the end of the term or until the president is able again. Who decides if the president is unable to serve? Well, the president himself can do that, or the vice president, as long as he has enough votes from the cabinet or some other body approved by Congress.

Okay, so the ABA took these recommendations to Congress. Several of us on the conference also were invited to testify in subsequent days. Do you have some concern that it would be difficult for the vice president and also the cabinet members to act with the necessary degree of impartiality? Would they be torn between loyalty to the president and the vice president? I think all of these are legitimate questions for us to discuss before making a final decision.

I feel this way, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I feel that nobody outside of the cabinet would have the confidence of the people of the country. Certainly, the cabinet is a body that is recognized as consisting of people close to the president. This is from John Feerick's testimony in Congress. It wasn't recorded, so it's being reenacted here. Senator Birch Bayh is asking the questions. In other words, you don't think removal of a disabled president is something to be taken lightly?

Not at all, Senator. I feel very strongly that any provision which we adopt should be weighed as heavily in favor of the President as possible, because it seems to me that this is the single greatest institution we have, and I would be very reluctant to see us set up a commission consisting of people who were neither appointed or elected.

Eventually, a draft of a constitutional amendment worked its way through Congress, with Senator Birch Bayh leading the way. This is top priority at this point. It was magnificent. It didn't immediately succeed. Congress adjourned without the House voting on it. But Senator Birch Bayh didn't give up. In 1965, he introduced it again.

How directly were you involved in terms of the deliberations on, you know, the Senate and House floors? Were you like, you know, running papers to people, taking notes? Like how directly were you involved in that whole process? Well, in many ways, I had several roles. First, as an organizer, he became a part of the ABA's Young Lawyers Committee on Presidential Inability and Vice Presidential Vacancy.

I did the best I could to energize the young lawyers of America, and we were very active, talking to the members of Congress from our state, both the House and the Senate. Second, educating lawyers and the public about the amendments. I wrote articles on it in the ABA Journal.

So in the ABA Journal at the time, today we got social media, we get so many publications. But at that time, that was an important publication. So the lawyers are getting educated all over America. You're educating them. You were educating them. You were really like shepherding it, it sounds like. People were carrying the material and the literature and passing it on. I mean, that's the part of all this, you know, that I think,

It's easy to forget. You're in your 20s. You're pretty fresh out of law school when all this is happening. It must have been a whirlwind to just be literally on the front lines of shaping the Constitution. Well, I was so busy, I don't think I focused on what was really happening. I was working as a practicing lawyer. I was putting in a lot of time.

So after months of organizing and educating and Senator Birch Bayh working his colleagues trying to get their votes, the bill was reintroduced.

And when that was introduced in January of '65, they had 70 sponsors in the Senate. They all wanted to get their name on it. The bill passed both houses of Congress. But in order for the bill to become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, three-fourths of state legislatures had to ratify it. It's very time-consuming and difficult to achieve.

But in 1967, two years after the bill was introduced, the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. John Furex's dream had become a reality. At the White House, a vital piece of legislation reaches President Johnson's desk. It's the 25th Constitutional Amendment, providing for the replacement of any disabled president or the filling of any vice presidential vacancy.

The 25th Amendment has four sections. The first three are straightforward. Basically, collectively, they say that when a president is removed from office or dies or resigns, the vice president automatically becomes president. If a vice president dies or resigns, then the president nominates a replacement and that person has to be approved by votes from both houses of Congress.

If a president sends a letter to Congress saying they can't continue their duties because they're unable physically or mentally, then the vice president takes on the president's duties until the president can do it again or there's another election. Availing myself of the constitutional option offered to this office by Section 3 of the 25th Amendment, which permits through a written declaration to temporarily transfer all powers of the presidency...

to the next in the constitutional line of succession. Anyone else who watches the show, the West Wing, like me, might remember when President Bartlett invoked the 25th Amendment after his daughter was kidnapped. There was no vice president, so he handed power to the Speaker of the House. I want it as clear as can be that this administration stands squarely behind and shoulder to shoulder with the acting president. Then there's Section 4, the longest section, the most controversial one,

It basically says that the vice president and the cabinet or some other body designated by Congress can determine if the president is unable to serve. If they get together and vote that the president is mentally or physically incapacitated, then the vice president will assume the powers and duties of the president. I'm wondering if you can explain what the thinking was in terms of making it clear

pretty, you know, like a really high bar, essentially, to get to the point where a president is being declared, you know, as having an inability. We start with the principle that people choose a president, as we recently did, for a term of four years. And that's a major part of the Constitution.

So the amendment makes it clear, but goes to Congress. The vote is in two houses, and it takes two-thirds of each house. And it was felt that that was really protective of the four-year term, and nobody wanted to process an inability with it. We got to make an instant decision.

And it could be a crisis if you don't make it. President's plane went down. You can't find the president, whatever it might be. Coming up, the 25th Amendment gets its first test. Hi, my name is Alistair Hetting, and I am a professor of history at Muskingum University in New Concord, Ohio. I often use your show in my classes. You are listening to ThruLine from NPR.

Before Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 following the Watergate scandal, there was his vice president, Spiro Agnew. The American people deserve to have a vice president who commands their unimpaired confidence and implicit trust. For more than two months now, you have not had such a vice president.

During the Watergate investigation, which implicated Nixon in a major political scandal that was rocking the country, a separate investigation was happening involving Agnew. There were allegations that he had been involved in bribery while serving in Maryland politics, including his role as governor. Agnew called these allegations damned lies. And at least to the public, Nixon backed him. The charges that have been made against him and which he has denied publicly...

He has denied to me privately on three occasions. But the pressure for Agnew to resign was growing. He told Nixon first in October 1973. Then he told the country on national television. In this technological age, image becomes dominant. Appearance supersedes reality. An appearance of wrongdoing, whether true or false, in fact, is damaging to any man.

But more important, it is fatal to a man who must be ready at any moment to step into the presidency. Spiro Agnew's resignation left Richard Nixon without a vice president, which meant that six years after the 25th Amendment was ratified, it got its first test.

The amendment has four parts. The one that concerns the vice presidency is Section 2. Section 2. John Feerick, who helped draft the 25th Amendment, reads it for us. Whenever there's a vacancy in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

And it was used for the first and only time during the period of 1973 and 74. When the vice president resigned from office, the president Nixon was able to nominate Gerald Ford, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, to be the new vice president, who was confirmed within two months after the nomination. On today, having confirmed the nomination of Gerald R. Ford...

of the state of Michigan to be vice president of the United States, the proceedings required by Section 2 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution have been complied with. So Gerald Ford became the vice president. Then the following year, President Richard Nixon resigned, which meant that under the 25th Amendment, Section 1, newly confirmed Vice President Ford would now become President Ford.

He then nominated his new vice president, again under Section 2, Nelson Rockefeller. So within a year, the 25th Amendment was invoked three separate times. We never speculated about that scenario. That's for sure. I mean, we never had anything like that in our history. Right.

As someone who had helped to build this amendment that was becoming very, very critical in this chaotic moment around the Watergate scandal, what did that look like for you, realizing this was having a very, very direct impact on the country's future? I was just thrilled, obviously, like so many of us, because Watergate was terrible. But keep in mind, the process involved both houses of Congress. Mm-hmm.

filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. And every district in the country had a representative in Congress. They wanted to get as close to the people as possible without a popular election, because you'd have an electoral college election. And a house had to be included, every district in the country. This wouldn't be the only time the 25th Amendment would be invoked.

Section 3, which allows the president to initiate a power transfer, that was used once by Ronald Reagan, twice by President George W. Bush, and once by President Joe Biden, all for being under anesthesia for medical procedures. The only part of the amendment that has never been used is Section 4.

That's the one where power is taken from the president. It basically says that the vice president and the cabinet can determine if the president is unable to serve. If they get together and vote that the president is physically or mentally incapacitated, then the vice president will assume the powers and duties of the president as acting president.

Section 4 almost had to be invoked when President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. A bullet was about an inch from Reagan's heart and he had to undergo surgery. But it wasn't invoked. People also mentioned Section 4 more recently when talking about former President Joe Biden's age and when President Trump's opponents questioned his capacity to lead at the end of his first term. But so far, all that discussion has only been hypothetical.

Obviously impossible to predict the future, but I am curious, given your lifetime of work on all sorts of issues relating to the Constitution, and we have been working on a series about amendments, and this is one of the last amendments to have ever been passed. What do you think is the future of

the 25th Amendment specifically, and the amendment process generally? I do think at the end of the day, we've been through a lot of issues in our country's history. We had, you know...

the Confederacy and a long time before women could vote, participate, and African-American women, even when other women could vote. We've been able to move beyond that. The way I see the world, I respect our Constitution. I hear presidents of both parties say, talk about the Constitution as part of their advocacy.

It's a written constitution. It's been the longest written constitution in the history of the world. And it makes clear from the start the sovereignty of the people, we the people. And if you want to change the constitution, it's not easy. But I don't rule out another constitutional amendment, even though it's very hard. And I have the confidence that the American people

Whether you understand the Constitution or not, you do understand there's something out there called the Constitution.

It's rare to hear someone speak hopefully about any of this, frankly, today. It feels like the popular sentiment is despair, is pessimism. What fuels your hope? Well, I said to students the other day, we all have an obligation as lawyers to keep hope alive because of the rule of law and our Constitution. And it's not easy.

But that doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not somebody who gives up hope. And I was just a young lawyer that thought that Congress should do something about the 25th Amendment. I feel like it's especially, you know, I don't know, powerful kind of having this conversation with you sitting here in Fordham where like all this began and

I think it's kind of beautiful that you're here. It's sort of a... It's so nice of you. I mean, it's... You know, when I read the pages in there last night, I wouldn't be able to do that today. And it brought back a lot of memories of people who are all gone. And yet, like myself, I had a belief in America forever.

That's it for this week's show. I'm Ramtin Arablui. I'm Randa Abdel-Fattah, and you've been listening to ThruLine from NPR.

This episode was produced by me. And me. And. Lawrence Wu. Julie Kay. Anya Steinberg. Casey Miner. Christina Kim. Devin Katayama. Sarah Wyman. Irene Noguchi. And a special thank you to Sarah Wyman, who did most of the reporting and writing for this episode. You are amazing and we miss you here at ThruLine. Voice over work in this episode was done by Neil Rausch and Zach Forrest.

Thank you to Jonette Oakes, Keandre Starling, Johannes Durge, Tony Cavan, Nadia Lancey, Edith Chapin, and Colin Campbell. Fact-checking for this episode was done by Kevin Vocal. This episode was mixed by Robert Rodriguez. Music for this episode was composed by Ramtin and his band, Drop Electric, which includes... Navid Marvi, Sho Fujiwara, Anya Mizani.

And finally, if you have an idea or like something you heard on the show, write us at ThruLine at NPR.org. Thanks for listening. This message comes from Messina Touring Group, presenting the Lumineers on the Automatic World Tour coming to a city near you. Get more information and tickets at thelumineers.com.