The 25th Amendment has been mentioned in public debate over the past eight years — often as a mechanism for removing a president from office. That is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Adopted in 1967 in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the amendment was designed not as a tool of removal, but as a practical framework to ensure continuity of presidential power.

Its purpose is limited and precise: to address presidential inability and fill a vacancy in the vice presidency. It was not meant to address political dissatisfaction with a president.

I know the history and intent of the amendment: I was given an opportunity to assist Congress in its development because of an article I wrote for the Fordham Law Review in 1963. The article detailed the history of the Constitution’s presidential succession provision and stated that an amendment on the subject was long overdue. Invited by the American Bar Association and leaders of Congress to become involved in this reform, I ultimately helped in the crafting and ratification of the 25th Amendment and in its implementation. In the decades since, I have studied and written extensively on its meaning and legislative history.