Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is demanding an investigation into former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline and its impact on his decision-making while in office.

Bailey is questioning whether Biden's mental state affected his ability to approve executive orders and pardons, raising issues about the legality and validity -- and potential voidability -- of those actions, as the Western Journal reports.

In his plea for investigation, Bailey is undertaking a critical examination of Biden’s cognitive abilities during his presidency's concluding months.

The main accusation revolves around claims that executive orders and pardons were disseminated without Biden's direct approval due to his declining mental health. This has led to concerns over the constitutionality of the decisions enacted in his name.

Allegations of Restriction, Exploitation

House Speaker Mike Johnson further intensified the debate by discussing prior attempts by Democrats to limit engagement with Biden, suggesting an effort to shield him from decision-making processes.

Attorney General Bailey echoed these concerns, citing potential manipulation by Biden's aides to advance their own initiatives. These allegations hint at a broader issue wherein members of the administration possibly sidestepped constitutional responsibilities by issuing orders lacking Biden’s cognizance.

Testaments supporting these claims have emerged, including those from figures such as Vice President Kamala Harris and former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Allegations purport that meetings with Biden were curtailed, ostensibly safeguarding him from external influence and scrutiny. Bailey framed these incidents as potential manipulations by staffers to advance radical policy without Biden’s informed consent.

Request for Federal Investigation Emerges

Bailey called on the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate, underscoring the necessity for clarity and accountability. The request, formalized in a letter, implores a thorough examination of Biden's purported decisions to assess their legitimacy.

The complexity of these claims mirrors the observations of Lindy Li, a prominent DNC fundraiser, who attested that Biden’s staff, along with his family, were the effective governing forces during his presidency. This narrative suggests a possible transfer of authority to individuals with neither presidential accountability nor electoral mandate.

Concerns Over Presidential Orders Deepens

A highlighted instance that prompted alarm involves Biden reportedly not recognizing his decision to pause liquefied natural gas exports. House Speaker Johnson conveyed his concerns in early 2024, fearing Biden lacked awareness of his own presidential actions. Such incidents foster questions about the actual executors behind the administration's major decisions.

Bailey argues that an investigation could clarify who truly governed the country in recent years. He conveyed urgency, affirming the public’s right to transparency and urging the DOJ to determine which of Biden’s orders reflected an aware and competent presidency.

Potential Impacts on Governance

Aside from legislative and executive ramifications, Bailey’s demands also pose profound implications for political accountability.

His statements question the interpretation of the 25th Amendment, which pertains to presidential incapacity and succession. The premise of authority not transitioning despite evidence of mental decline fuels the conversation.

The issue remains complicated, with Bailey stressing that unelected staff evading accountability undermines democratic principles. His request emphasizes that the president’s inability to govern necessitates a lawful transition of power, as opposed to covertly allowing others to impose their agenda.

Call for Judicial Clarity Issued

Bailey’s legal challenge indirectly emphasizes the pertinent role of succession protocols for future scenarios involving presidential health and capability. The ongoing discourse might prompt deeper evaluations of governmental checks and balances, especially where unexpected incapacities arise.

At the heart of the issue lies the principle of democratic governance. Bailey’s endeavor to unearth the veracity of Biden’s administrative actions fosters a broader discourse on political transparency and power dynamics in American leadership.

The attorney general’s insistence on due process seeks to determine the extent of alleged staff manipulation during the Biden administration’s twilight. With national implications, Bailey’s approach adds an intricate layer to contemporary political analysis, implicating multiple figures and facets of governance whilst advocating for the public's justified demand for transparency.