The amendment hasn’t been around that long. I believe the only use of the amendment has been when Nixon nominated Gerald Ford to be VP after Agnew resigned and on several occasions when the President was undergoing some procedure where he was under anethesia. On those occasions, the President transmitted a statement that he was relinquishing power, and one resuming duties when he came out of surgery. For the Cabinet and the VP to initiate action would be a momentous move, and some would consider it a coup d’etat, but it IS one method available.
For the Cabinet and the VP to initiate action would be a momentous move, and some would consider it a coup d’etat, but it IS one method available.
I see this as something that would happen only in the event of the President becoming physically incapacitated, and he was either willingly going or else he was in a coma in which he couldn't say or do anything.
But, I don't ever see this being done against a President's will when he is fully physically capable and mentally capable.
There are also things in the Constitution that I don't ever see as happening. I was just on another thread where they were talking about the states invoking a Constitutional Convention to make some changes to our present form of governing (as we conservatives see it happening right now).
The only trouble there is "opening the door" to a Constitutional Convention (which can be done) will open the door to all sorts of liberals and Marxists making changes to that same Constitution, too.
So, I never see this one as happening in our futures, either.
The Amendment you've brought up isn't going to happen (be put into action) with a President that is physically and mentally capable of discharging his duties and he's "taken out" by this Amendment... no way... :-)