[ExI] Trump suggests not letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat



>...Spike, you previously said, in answer to my question of what actually enforces the constitution, "The supreme court". Now you're saying it's the military and the militia....

The supreme court gets to decide what the constitution means.  The military and the militia enforce it.

>...So if the supreme court decides that something the president decides to do is illegal, and order him to stop, and he takes no notice, then the military and the militia can force him to stop. In theory...

Congress steps in with impeachment.  If POTUS is voted out by 60 senators, the supreme court swears in the next one in succession without delay, which is JD Vance currently.  The military would not need to physically remove the previous POTUS from the oval office, with the Secret Service protecting his personal safety, for whoever has the nuclear code is the new president. And wherever that nuclear football is located is the new president's office.  It can be in the Naval Observatory if necessary.  The White House is just an office building, as is the capitol. 

>...I see one big problem with that theory. The president is the commander of both the military...

If POTUS is impeached and someone else is sworn in, then the someone else is the new commander of the military.  The military are strict law and order types.  They will not join in a coup attempt.

>...and the militia...

But not the militia.  The militia is intentionally made up of armed civilians, specifically not military or government employees.  They are for the purpose of defending the free state, but are not obligated to follow orders from any federal government employee or military leader.  This is by design.  The militia is obligated to follow law of course, which is the meaning of "well regulated."  

>... And as we've seen recently, the military have been told that they should not obey the law if they are commanded to do something that is against the law...

That is the spin version of it.  Soldiers go through extensive training on what is and what is not a legal order.  Every nation on the planet does this.  They don't want soldiers second-guessing their training however, for every 19 yr old with an M16 is not an expert in military law.  

>...So I'm still in the dark about what can, in practice, stop the president from doing whatever he likes, constitution or no constitution...

Ja, however being British, we don't expect you to be an expert on the US constitution.  Very few yanks understand the constitution.  But it works anyway.  That's why we have never had a POTUS attempt to hold onto the office after his term expired.

>...The secret service, that protect the president, who do they obey? The law, or the president?

OK well I do admit the secret service would have contradictory orders if the president ordered them to kill him.  But as far as I know that has never happened and is unlikely to happen in the future.

>... If a policeman marched into the white house and tried to arrest the president for disobeying the supreme court...

That isn't how that process works Ben.  Congress impeaches a POTUS who disobeys the supreme court.

>... (if such a policeman could be found), what would happen? Would the secret service be obliged to stand aside and let the arrest take place?

The secret service would likely kill him if he had a weapon of any kind anywhere near POTUS.  The secret service knows how our legal system works.  Not that way.

>...Oh, but I'm forgetting that the president can't actually commit a crime, as he has absolute criminal immunity for any official acts....

That doesn't stop him from impeachment however.

>...So he cannot be arrested for doing anything at all, as long as it's 'official', and of course that includes doing things that the constitution forbids, there is no exemption that I know of for this...

Impeachment Ben.  The framers thought of that problem.

>...This seems to suggest that he can ignore the 22nd amendment without any consequences. Or indeed any other part of the constitution. As far as he is concerned, it might as well not exist...

The 22nd forbids him from running for that office after having won a second time.  If elected, the supreme court will still swear in someone else.

>...I'm sure my thinking on this must be at fault...

Don't worry, it is.

>...But I can't see where. Any thoughts?

Many.  The constitution framers were guys who had fresh and bitter experience with tyranny.  They carefully designed the document to prevent falling back into the same problem.  The good news is that it works.

>...I think we can all agree that never in the last 250 years has a POTUS established the same cult of personality that the current one has...

I think we can all agree the current POTUS has no cult of personality and that he won two out of three elections in spite of his personality.  The current POTUS is very arrogant, Ben.  This is a negative personality trait.  He won two of three elections in spite of that, not because of it.  The opposing mainstream party still doesn't understand that, and doesn't understand why they are walking into an even bigger defeat.

>... and none of them have loaded so many official positions with their loyal supporters, and removed so many opponents. Never before has the deck been so loaded in favour of a president being able to take over the government...

Perhaps you are familiar with the term "Operation Crossfire Hurricane."  Our own FBI committed multiple illegal acts specifically aimed at the current POTUS.  He was elected with America's full knowledge that his second term would be a revenge tour.  Our own FBI falsified evidence to get a secret surveillance warrant, then illegally failed to brief POTUS that he was under secret surveillance.  Sure we know it is illogical to brief a person that they are under secret surveillance, however the FBI is still legally obligated to report it up the chain of command.  This they failed to do.  This is corruption.  Of course POTUS is going to get someone to clean house.  We can't have the federal top cops being corrupt.

>...The statement "He cannot" has no power on its own. It needs to be backed up with the means to enforce it, like fair and unbiased courts...

Congress.  The mechanism is impeachment.

>...I find it ironic that so many americans take pride and comfort in their political system being modelled on the roman republic, while also apparently being blind as to how it ended.
-- 
Ben
_______________________________________________

I have a pretty good idea how our republic will end: it will drown in its own debt.  Notice the yield on ten year US treasuries, 5.36% with the T30s at 5.57%.  The US government is casually strolling toward the day when it will be unable to borrow money.

spike