Ever since President Donald Trump took the oath of office as the nation’s commander-in-chief, Democrats have been scrambling to see if there’s any possible way they could remove him from power. Even before Trump took office, there was talk of impeaching him, but that’s likely an impossibility as long as Republicans control both houses of Congress and Trump doesn’t anger too many of them.

In fact, impeaching Trump would be counterproductive for Republicans — for both the party and the nation; as long as Trump doesn’t stray too far from the party line, he’s safe from any probable chance of impeachment. For frustrated Democrats, that leaves few avenues left to prevent Trump from serving out his full four years — or even a possible eight — as president.

One small option that does exist, however, is the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in 1967 as a partial response to the Kennedy assassination.

Prior to that time, a vice president assuming the duties of the president when the latter was killed or permanently incapacitated was done under Article II of the original Constitution, but the wording regarding the assumption of power was vague — did the vice president become the new president, or merely the “acting president” until a special election was called?

The death in office of President William Henry Harrison (who according to legend died from a cold he caught while giving his inauguration speech) and subsequent assumption of presidential duties by Vice President John Tyler set a precedent for the vice president to take over until the end of the original president’s term, rather than temporarily.

But what about cases where a president becomes temporarily incapacitated? In some of those cases, as has occurred when former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush needed to undergo and recover from surgery, the nation’s commander-in-chief can turn his duties over to the vice president voluntarily by issuing a declaration invoking Section 3 of the 25th Amendment.

This status is in effect until the president feels he’s fit to resume his duties, which he’s able to do by declaring that opinion in writing to both the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

However, the 4th section of the 25th Amendment (which has never been invoked) provides for special cases whereby the vice president together with other individuals can amongst themselves declare the president unable or unfit to discharge his duties. In these rare and special instances, the president may be removed from power — until such time as Congress believes he or she is fit to regain it.

In some countries, such an event might be termed a coup d’etat, but such an extraordinary action would require the cooperation of both the vice president and these “other individuals,” who are referred to by the Amendment as a “majority of either the principal officers of the [federal] executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

Of course, this wording leaves open the possibility of a partisan-led effort to overthrow the president, but only if these other individuals and the vice president are willing to act against him or her — something that would likely only happen if all of these people were members of a party opposing the president’s — an incredibly unlikely (but not altogether impossible) scenario.

Simply put, when it comes to President Trump, the chances of this section of the Amendment being invoked are incredibly low. Even if it somehow were to occur, Trump could declare himself fit for office again immediately and could only be prohibited from regaining his power by a two-thirds majority in Congress — again, something very unlikely to occur given the majorities Republicans hold in both houses currently.

But this hasn’t stopped some Congressional Democrats (as well as pundits in the media) from openly discussing the Amendment’s provisions in regards to Trump. In an interview on CNN, Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Spier of California said Trump “has got to get a grip. The 25th Amendment is there if the president becomes incapacitated.”

Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California said he wants to introduce legislation that would force Trump to have a psychologist or psychiatrist in the White House at all times. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota claimed that “a few” Senate Republicans have expressed concerns to him regarding Trump’s competency.

Adding fuel to the fire, Democratic Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said blatantly in a House floor speech that Trump’s mental health could be a reason to invoke the Amendment.

Referring to Trump’s repeated verbal exaggerations, Blumenauer said, “It’s not normal behavior. I don’t know anybody in a position of responsibility that doesn’t know if they’re being rained on… Nobody I work with serially offers up verifiably false statements on an ongoing basis.”

In an op-ed in his state’s newspaper The Oregonian, Blumenauer pointed out what he called a “flaw” in the 25th Amendment — that a sitting president could fire his executive cabinet if he felt threatened by their ability to invoke Section 4 of the Amendment, similar to the way that former President Richard Nixon fired Watergate Special Counsel Archibald Cox when Cox refused to drop a subpoena against the president.

For this reason, Blumenauer argues, he believes that the individuals named by the Amendment’s wording — “such other body as Congress may by law provide” — should be an exclusive group formed by all living former vice presidents and presidents. Of course, left unsaid is that currently, such a group would be composed of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale — all of whom (with the possible exception of Dick Cheney) are vocal opponents of current President Trump.

There’s also debate about what circumstances could lead to the fourth section of the 25th Amendment being applied. New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan says he believes “If, say, a president is showing cognitive decline, the people and Congress should be aware of it and be able to argue it.”

But other medical experts say lawmakers aren’t qualified to make medical analyses. Dr. Afshine Emrani, a cardiologist in Los Angeles, says, “You cannot diagnose someone in the public eye based solely on their TV interviews. A lot of these things are politically motivated, and it irks me. That’s like me saying someone has heart problems by just seeing them on a TV show. You need to see the patient, examine them, take blood and perform an ECG. You can’t diagnose a heart attack by someone saying they have chest pain on TV. Psychiatry is the same.”

Emrani pointed to a New York Times article in which 35 social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists signed an online petition to diagnose President Trump from afar. The petition claims that “the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.”

Emrani said that he doesn’t want to see people “belittle mental illness because they have a political agenda… Psychiatric name-calling and bullying is against their professional code. They should be exposed for what they are. I can guarantee an overwhelming majority of them voted against Trump.”

Emrani is more than likely correct as recent surveys of health care professionals have shown a bias against President Trump. Could it have anything to do with Trump’s desire to repeal Obamacare?

In any event, conservatives should be mindful of these efforts by Democrats and should inhibit any legislative effort to modify and/or invoke the 25th Amendment — even if it is with “the best of intentions,” as Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi might say.