25TH AMENDMENT ISN'T IMPEACHMENT THOUGH. THE PROCESSES FOR IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT ARE DIFFERENT FROM DEEMING HIM UNABLE TO LAY DOWN THE POSITION HIMSELF. IN THE CASE OF THE LATTER THE CONGRESS WOULD BE THE ONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTING PRESIDENT WAS INDEED IN A CONDITION THAT FITS THIS DESCRIPTION.

IF IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE LIKE GETTING FIRED FROM A JOB, THE 25TH IS FORCED RETIREMENT. ITS ORIGINAL INTENT WAS NOT IN ANY WAY TO DESCRIBE SOMEONE AS UNFIT TO LEAD, IN CASES WHERE THAT UNFITNESS IS IN ITSELF OBVIOUS:

-KENNEDY'S DEATH FOR EXAMPLE, CAN'T REALLY BE PRESIDENT IF YOU'RE 6 FEET UNDER

-WOODROW WILSON'S STROKE AND COMA

SO IT GETS A LITTLE IFFY WHEN THE TARGET ISN'T CLEARLY UNFIT PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY, RATHER COMPROMISED BY OTHER PARTIES (IN WHICH CASE IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE THE LOGICAL CONSTITUTIONAL STEP)

I GUESS IT BOILS DOWN TO "25TH AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY HERE, SO USING IT ISN'T EXACTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION"