That's not a coup. I'm talking about following the rules. I only pointed out the fact (which should be obvious, but sometimes isn't) that the enforcement of rules ultimately depends on how the guys with guns interpret them.
The rules say the 25th amendment applies only when "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".
I cited the rule in the Constitution that allows a majority of the Cabinet to replace the President with the Vice-President. Just because you don't like that rule, or think it should only be used in cases where the President is still alive but unconscious, doesn't mean that it isn't a rule that I and the Cabinet and the guys with guns will follow and interpret differently than you do.
In other words, your alleged safeguard depends upon Trump's vice-president (presumably Mike Pence) and a majority of Trump's cabinet having so little regard for the US Constitution (as amended) that they would invoke section 4 of the 25th amendment even when the plain language of that amendment does not apply. You also assume "the guys with guns" would support this hypothetical abrogation of the US Constitution.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right about Mike Pence's disregard for the US Constitution, and let's assume a majority of Trump's cabinet and "the guys with guns" would go along with this unconstitutional seizure of power you prefer we not refer to as a "coup".
Would that lawless interpretation of the 25th amendment prevent
Seismosaurus's scenario?
From what I've read, the President would need to have his order confirmed by the Secretary of Defence - a person who would be a Trump appointee. If the SecDef refuses, the President can fire him and his Deputy assumes the position. If he refuses to confirm the order Trump could repeat the process until he finds a SecDef willing to confirm the order.
Secretary of Defense is a cabinet position, and therefore anybody he nominates needs to be confirmed by the Senate.
On 20 October 1973, when
Seismosaurus's scenario actually played out with a different member of a different president's cabinet, the 25th amendment did not prevent President Richard Nixon from firing that member of his cabinet, firing that cabinet member's deputy, and swearing in a new acting member of the cabinet who would do Nixon's bidding.
I refer you to the
25th Amendment, Section 4. It was actually used to remove President David Palmer from office during Season 2 of
24.
Perhaps you were not aware that the television show
24 was fiction.
What happened on 20 October 1973 was real. Nixon's vice-president and the other members of his cabinet were not even aware of what was happening until after Robert Bork was sworn in as an acting member of the cabinet and had done the sort of deed you claim to believe would be impossible given the requirement for Senate confirmation of cabinet members and safeguards provided by the 25th amendment.
I offered you an out by suggesting you hadn't actually read the constitutional amendment you cited.
Well, I had read it, and I did know that. I also know that such words are as meaningless as the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the part of the Constitution governing impeachment. Impeachment is a political act, and is therefore subjective. So is invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. All that matters in the end is what the guys with guns, i.e. the Secret Service, in the most immediate case, will do.
In other words, your alleged safeguard depends upon the willingness of Trump's vice president and his cabinet to disregard the plain language of the 25th amendment to the US Constitution, the willingness of "the guys with guns" to go along with that,
and also depends upon those people becoming aware of what was happening in time to carry out what amounts to an unconstitutional coup before any lasting damage could be done.
Based on the historical events of 20 October 1973, we know a president can implement
Seismosaurus's scenario before his vice president and principled cabinet members would have time to "transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" as required by the 25th amendment.
Although I seldom bother to correct sunmaster14's mistakes, I was amused by his apparent ignorance of the fact that the scenario whose possibility he was denying had already happened. I'd like to say I had no idea he would compound his error by citing an irrelevant amendment to the US Constitution, but I can't say I was entirely surprised by that either.
I like the gratuitous swipe at me. It doesn't really fit in with the spirit of this thread, but I guess it's kind of par for the course for liberals here.
Our disagreement here is not a matter of liberal versus conservative. It's a matter of US law and history versus television fiction (
24) and your apparent belief that Trump's vice president and a majority of his cabinet would be sure to learn of Trump's shenanigans in time to convince "guys with guns" to support an unconstitutional seizure of power.
To be fair, I am quite willing to believe your evident faith in Mike Pence's readiness to disregard the US Constitution and its amendments is one of the stronger reasons you can give for supporting Donald Trump in this election.
