In the high-stakes world of American politics, where every word is scrutinized and every statement can become viral
content within minutes, even the most experienced legislators occasionally stumble in ways that undermine their intended message. Such moments serve as stark reminders that political passion, while necessary for effective advocacy, must be tempered with precision and constitutional literacy to maintain credibility and effectiveness.
The latest example of this delicate balance between fervor and accuracy emerged from a television appearance that was intended to deliver a serious constitutional argument about presidential fitness for office. Instead, the segment became a case study in how a fundamental error can overshadow substantive policy concerns and provide ammunition to political opponents eager to question a critic’s competence.
What unfolded reveals not only the challenges facing lawmakers who must navigate complex constitutional processes while under intense media pressure, but also the broader implications of how constitutional illiteracy can undermine legitimate political discourse in an era when every mistake is amplified and weaponized by opposing political forces.
The Television Appearance That Sparked Controversy
Representative Maxine Waters of California stepped before MSNBC cameras on Friday with a clear mission: to articulate her concerns about President Donald Trump’s fitness for office and call for constitutional action to address what she perceives as dangerous presidential behavior. The veteran congresswoman, known for her passionate advocacy and willingness to take strong stands against policies she opposes, intended to make a serious constitutional argument about the limits of presidential power.
Waters’ appearance was prompted by Trump’s recent decision to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that the California Democrat characterized as both economically dangerous and potentially self-serving. Her concerns about the dismissal centered on its potential impact on monetary policy, interest rates, and the broader economy, issues that fall squarely within her expertise as a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee.
“It is time to call for Article [Amendment] 25 of the Constitution of the United States of America to determine his unfitness, to determine that something’s wrong with this president,” Waters declared during the appearance. “And I would suggest that we move very aggressively to talk about the danger to this country and to our democracy and not play around with this because this is absolutely one of the most destructive things that this president could do.”
However, Waters’ passionate plea was immediately undermined by a fundamental error that would overshadow her substantive concerns about economic policy. By referring to “Article 25” instead of the “25th Amendment,” she demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of constitutional structure that provided her critics with easy ammunition while detracting from her intended message about presidential accountability.
Understanding the Constitutional Error
The mistake Waters made reveals a fundamental confusion about the structure and organization of the U.S. Constitution that is particularly problematic for a member of Congress who has sworn an oath to support and defend that document. The Constitution consists of seven articles that establish the basic framework of government, followed by 27 amendments that modify or add to the original text.
Article 25 simply does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution contains only seven articles: Article I establishes the legislative branch, Article II creates the executive branch, Article III establishes the judicial branch, Article IV governs relationships between states, Article V outlines the amendment process, Article VI establishes federal supremacy, and Article VII addresses ratification.
The 25th Amendment, which Waters clearly intended to reference, was ratified in 1967 and provides mechanisms for addressing presidential incapacity or inability to serve. Section 4 of the amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of cabinet members to declare a president unable to discharge presidential duties, effectively removing the president from power until the situation is resolved.
This distinction matters because it reflects basic constitutional literacy that voters rightfully expect from their elected representatives. When lawmakers demonstrate fundamental confusion about the documents they’ve sworn to uphold, it raises questions about their competence to participate in complex constitutional processes and undermines their credibility when making serious arguments about governmental power and accountability.
The 25th Amendment’s Actual Provisions
Understanding what Waters was attempting to invoke requires examining the 25th Amendment’s actual provisions and the high bar it sets for removing a president from office. The amendment addresses four scenarios related to presidential succession and incapacity, with Section 4 being the most relevant to Waters’ apparent concerns.
Section 4 allows the Vice President and a majority of principal cabinet officers to declare in writing to congressional leadership that the President is unable to discharge presidential duties. This declaration immediately transfers presidential powers to the Vice President as Acting President, but it also triggers a process that allows the President to contest the determination.
If the President contests the incapacity determination, Congress must decide the issue by two-thirds vote in both chambers within 21 days. This extraordinarily high threshold ensures that the 25th Amendment cannot be used as a routine tool for political disagreement but only in cases of genuine presidential incapacity that commands overwhelming bipartisan support.
The amendment has never been used to remove a sitting president, though it has been invoked voluntarily when presidents underwent medical procedures. Its invocation would represent an unprecedented constitutional crisis that would require extraordinary evidence of presidential incapacity beyond mere policy disagreements or concerns about decision-making quality.
The Federal Reserve Controversy at the Heart of Waters’ Concerns
While Waters’ constitutional reference was flawed, her underlying concerns about Trump’s dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook touch on legitimate questions about presidential power over monetary policy and potential conflicts of interest. The Federal Reserve System was designed to operate with significant independence from political pressure, and Fed governors serve 14-year terms specifically to insulate them from short-term political considerations.
Cook’s dismissal came amid mounting allegations of mortgage fraud, with federal housing regulators issuing criminal referrals over discrepancies in her property filings. The allegations center on claims that Cook misrepresented the nature of various properties on mortgage applications and government ethics forms, potentially obtaining better loan terms through false representations.
According to Bill Pulte, head of the U.S. Federal Housing Agency, Cook misrepresented a Cambridge, Massachusetts condominium as a “second home” on a 2021 mortgage application, then listed the same property as an “investment/rental property” on government ethics forms eight months later. Similar discrepancies allegedly exist regarding properties in Atlanta and Ann Arbor, creating a pattern of potentially fraudulent representations.
“Three strikes and you’re out,” Pulte wrote on social media, detailing what he characterized as repeated false representations by Cook about her various properties. Such discrepancies are significant because lenders typically offer more favorable terms for primary residences and second homes than for investment properties, which carry higher interest rates and down payment requirements due to perceived higher risks.
Waters’ Economic Arguments and Their Merit
Despite her constitutional error, Waters raised substantive concerns about the economic implications of Cook’s dismissal that deserve serious consideration. As a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, Waters has extensive experience with monetary policy issues and legitimate expertise in evaluating the potential consequences of changes to Federal Reserve leadership.
“This stands to basically upend the entire economy. This stands to really deal with what is going to happen on Wall Street, what’s going to happen with interest rates, what’s going to happen with the president of the United States being able to make decisions that he will personally benefit from,” Waters argued during her MSNBC appearance.
Her concerns about potential conflicts of interest reflect broader questions about presidential power over institutions designed to operate independently from political influence. The Federal Reserve’s independence is considered crucial for effective monetary policy, as political pressure can lead to short-term decisions that undermine long-term economic stability.
Waters also worried about the precedent of removing Fed governors for reasons that might be politically motivated rather than based solely on performance or ethical violations. If presidents can easily dismiss Fed governors, it could compromise the institution’s independence and effectiveness in managing monetary policy without political interference.
The Social Media Response and Political Implications
Waters’ constitutional error quickly became viral content on social media platforms, with critics across the political spectrum mocking her mistake while questioning her competence to evaluate presidential fitness for office. The irony of calling for presidential removal based on mental unfitness while simultaneously demonstrating constitutional illiteracy was not lost on political observers and opponents.
“Mentally unstable Maxine Waters wants to invoke ‘Article 25’ of the Constitution because she says Trump is mentally unfit for office. ‘Something’s wrong with this president!’” noted the Western Lensman account on social media, highlighting the contradiction between Waters’ argument and her error.
Florida Politics editor Eric Daugherty was even more direct in his criticism: “WOW! Maxine Waters LOSES IT on national television, demands the immediate invoking of ‘Article 25’ of the Constitution to remove Donald Trump from office. There is no Article 25…there are only 7 Articles. ‘Something’s WRONG with this president!’ Something’s wrong with this CONGRESSWOMAN.”
The viral nature of Waters’ mistake demonstrates how quickly political errors can spread and overshadow substantive policy arguments in the modern media environment. Her constitutional confusion became the story rather than her concerns about economic policy or presidential accountability, effectively undermining her intended message and providing her opponents with ready-made attack material.
The Broader Context of Constitutional Literacy in Congress
Waters’ error highlights broader concerns about constitutional literacy among elected officials and the importance of basic civics knowledge for effective governance. Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, making fundamental knowledge of that document’s structure and provisions a reasonable expectation for their service.
The mistake also reflects the challenges facing lawmakers who must speak extemporaneously about complex constitutional issues while under media pressure. Television appearances require quick thinking and clear communication, but they also create opportunities for errors that can have lasting political consequences when captured on video and shared widely online.
Constitutional literacy becomes particularly important when lawmakers attempt to invoke rarely used provisions like the 25th Amendment, which requires precise understanding of complex procedures and high legal standards. Misstatements about such procedures can undermine public confidence in both the specific lawmaker and the broader institution of Congress.
The Political Weaponization of Constitutional Errors
The rapid spread of criticism regarding Waters’ mistake demonstrates how constitutional errors can be weaponized in partisan political battles, often overshadowing the substantive policy concerns that prompted the original statement. In an era of intense political polarization, even minor mistakes can become major political liabilities that opponents exploit for maximum advantage.
This weaponization creates a chilling effect on political discourse, as lawmakers may become reluctant to engage in constitutional arguments for fear of making errors that will be used against them. However, it also reinforces the importance of constitutional competence among elected officials who must navigate complex legal and procedural issues as part of their official duties.
The focus on Waters’ error rather than the substance of her economic arguments reflects broader patterns in American political discourse, where procedural mistakes often receive more attention than policy substance. This dynamic can undermine productive debate about important issues while rewarding opponents who focus on gotcha moments rather than substantive engagement.
Lessons for Political Communication and Constitutional Discourse
Waters’ mistake offers important lessons about the intersection of constitutional knowledge, political communication, and media strategy in contemporary American politics. The incident demonstrates that passionate advocacy must be combined with precise knowledge to maintain credibility and effectiveness in political arguments.
For lawmakers attempting to make constitutional arguments, the incident underscores the importance of careful preparation and fact-checking before public appearances. Constitutional provisions are complex and technical, requiring precise language and accurate references to maintain credibility and avoid providing opponents with attack opportunities.
The viral nature of Waters’ error also highlights how quickly political mistakes can spread in the digital media environment, making accuracy and precision more important than ever for public officials. In an era where every statement can become content for political opponents, lawmakers must balance spontaneous communication with careful attention to factual accuracy.
The Future of 25th Amendment Discussions
Despite Waters’ error, legitimate questions remain about the appropriate use of the 25th Amendment and the standards for determining presidential incapacity. The amendment’s high procedural barriers ensure it cannot be used for routine political disagreements, but they also create challenges for addressing genuine concerns about presidential fitness when they arise.
Future discussions about the 25th Amendment will need to distinguish between policy disagreements and genuine incapacity while maintaining the constitutional processes designed to prevent abuse of this extraordinary power. Waters’ error may actually complicate such discussions by associating constitutional arguments with constitutional illiteracy.
The incident also demonstrates the importance of constitutional education for both lawmakers and the general public, as effective democratic governance requires basic understanding of governmental structures and processes. When elected officials demonstrate confusion about fundamental constitutional provisions, it undermines public confidence in governmental institutions and democratic processes.
Conclusion: The Cost of Constitutional Confusion
Representative Maxine Waters’ reference to the non-existent “Article 25” while calling for President Trump’s removal serves as a cautionary tale about the intersection of political passion and constitutional precision. Her substantive concerns about Federal Reserve independence and potential presidential conflicts of interest were overshadowed by a fundamental error that undermined her credibility and provided ammunition to political opponents.
The incident highlights the importance of constitutional literacy among elected officials and the challenges of maintaining accuracy while engaging in passionate political advocacy. In an era where every mistake can become viral content, lawmakers must balance spontaneous communication with careful attention to constitutional facts and procedures.
While Waters’ error was embarrassing and politically damaging, it should not completely overshadow the legitimate questions she raised about presidential power, institutional independence, and potential conflicts of interest. However, her mistake demonstrates that effective political advocacy requires not just passion and conviction, but also precise knowledge of the constitutional framework that governs American democracy.
The broader lesson extends beyond any individual lawmaker to encompass the fundamental importance of constitutional literacy in democratic governance. When elected officials demonstrate confusion about basic constitutional provisions, it undermines public confidence in both individual representatives and democratic institutions more broadly, making accurate constitutional knowledge not just politically advantageous but essential for effective democratic leadership.
