How much could the President get away with?

[The Hamster King]

This might be a debate rather than a general question, but I'll start it here and see how it goes.

Say the President wakes up one morning and decides "What the fuck, let's see how much power I really have!" and starts issuing extreme executive orders. How much COULD he get away with before being booted out of office?

If he's really crazy (like trying to start a nuclear war for no reason) I imagine his immediate subordinates would just refuse to obey. But if he showed a little bit of restraint it might take weeks or months before Congress got around to impeaching him and removing him from office. And during that time his orders would still be followed. What could a rogue President accomplish in that time frame? Order the public release of all top secret documents? Sell all federal lands to oil companies? What?

[J Cubed]

In all honesty, I think it depends on whether the President is a Democrat or Republican.

[friedo]

This might be a debate rather than a general question, but I'll start it here and see how it goes.

Say the President wakes up one morning and decides "What the fuck, let's see how much power I really have!" and starts issuing extreme executive orders. How much COULD he get away with before being booted out of office?

If he's really crazy (like trying to start a nuclear war for no reason) I imagine his immediate subordinates would just refuse to obey. But if he showed a little bit of restraint it might take weeks or months before Congress got around to impeaching him and removing him from office. And during that time his orders would still be followed. What could a rogue President accomplish in that time frame? Order the public release of all top secret documents? Sell all federal lands to oil companies? What?

In the case of starting a nuclear war, he can't act alone. Federal statute requires that any order concerning military weapons must come from the "National Command Authority" which is defined as consisting of the President and the Secretary of Defense. All the people who deal with nuclear weapons know what the statutory requirements are, and wouldn't feel compelled to follow an illegal order.

Of course, the Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President, and there's nothing to prevent a Saturday-Night-Massacre-style firing of people until some third-shift junior deputy assistant secretary for janitorial affairs becomes acting SecDef and happily presses the button.

In the event that the President truly goes nuts, the Cabinet can remove him temporarily under the powers granted in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25th_Amendment#Section_Four:_Involuntary_Withdrawal). If the President disagrees, eventually Congress would have to settle the issue.

And of course, there's the Congressional power impeachment and removal. That takes a while under normal circumstances, but there's no reason Congress couldn't significantly speed up the procedure. There's no particular burden of proof for an impeachment trial, too, unlike a criminal case.

[Elendil's Heir]

When Nixon was really down in the dumps and talking to the portraits on the White House walls during the Watergate crisis, the SecDef at the time (and I believe this was before the law changed to what friedo correctly now describes) told the JCS and a handful of other senior officers that any odd orders coming out of the White House were to be run by him first. He didn't want an unhinged or suicidal President starting WWIII.

Nixon aside, the more outrageous an order the President gave, the more his own staff would push back out of concern for his public standing and effectiveness in office (Worried aide: "Are you really sure you want to do that, sir?"). If he was pounding the desk and demanding his staff carry out orders that they knew would make him a laughingstock or that were actually dangerous, switchboards around Washington would light up very quickly. Just about any White House would leak like a sieve in those circumstances, and it would probably not be long before the Vice President, Cabinet and even Congress pushed back.

[Little Nemo]

In the case of starting a nuclear war, he can't act alone. Federal statute requires that any order concerning military weapons must come from the "National Command Authority" which is defined as consisting of the President and the Secretary of Defense. All the people who deal with nuclear weapons know what the statutory requirements are, and wouldn't feel compelled to follow an illegal order.

Of course, the Secretary of Defense serves at the pleasure of the President, and there's nothing to prevent a Saturday-Night-Massacre-style firing of people until some third-shift junior deputy assistant secretary for janitorial affairs becomes acting SecDef and happily presses the button.Two nitpicks. I believe that secondary approval is only required for a first strike attack. If nuclear weapons have been used first by some other power, I believe the President can authorize a counter-attack on his sole authority.

Also, I believe that the secondary approval requires an official who has been confirmed by the Senate. An acting official would not have the proper authority.

[The Hamster King]

I know that if the President goes too far people will simply refuse to follow his orders.

What I'm asking is ...

How far could the average President go before that happens?

What could he realistically get away with?

[friedo]

In the case of starting a nuclear war, he can't act alone. Federal statute requires that any order concerning military weapons must come from the "National Command Authority"


That should be, "any order concerning nuclear weapons"


Also, I believe that the secondary approval requires an official who has been confirmed by the Senate. An acting official would not have the proper authority.


Interesting. I guess that only leaves only one or two levels of bureaucrats to massacre. :p

[Elendil's Heir]

Well, jeez, that depends on the circumstances, the President, how obliging/obsequious the staff is, the political climate, etc. There are a host of imponderables.

[Si Amigo]

You mean like could the POTUS direct someone to blow him? Could he launch a non-nuclear missile into a country we are not at war with? Attempt to assassinate the leader of another country? Hold foreign nationals in jail without access to due process of law? Disregard the Geneva convention?

[Telemark]

How far could the average President go before that happens?

What could he realistically get away with?
There is no average President. The people around him/her are not a standard set of responses. There is no way to answer this question, IMO.

[jtgain]

Also, I believe that the secondary approval requires an official who has been confirmed by the Senate. An acting official would not have the proper authority.

So, a foolproof plan for say, China would be to blow up the capitol building during the State of the Union speech, when the SecDef wasn't the guy left at home.

The the one cabinet official not in attendance would become President, but since no acting SecDef could authorize nukes, then we would not be allowed to respond to thousands of incoming ICBMs..:dubious:

[Elendil's Heir]

There are several assistant SecDefs with various responsibilities, all of whom are subject to Senate confirmation. But the stay-away Cabinet secretary who would assume the Presidency under such catastrophic circumstances would be quickly sworn in, and could issue orders for a retaliatory strike, if necessary. I'm not losing any sleep over this. Since the dawn of the Cold War, a lot of thought has been given to assuring continuity and survivability of the NCA.

[clayton_e]

Well we've proven that your below-average president can invade a country he just doesn't like for no reason other than a complex regarding his dad and a lack of good targets where we should've been. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-20-clarke_x.htm)

[Colibri]

This the answer to this is going to pretty much be based on speculation, it's probably better suited for GD than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Paige Turner]

Well, if the OP is too broad, let's try some specifics (because I have no idea what the answers are and I'm curious). These are in no particular order of positivity (or sanity) - they're just things I came up with off the top of my head.

Could he write and sign an UHC executive order that automatically and immediately enrolls everyone in the country who makes less than . . . I dunno . . . $40K/yr into Medicare?

Could he raise the highway speed limit across the country to 100 MPH?

Could he order that the next minting of money by the Treasury and all that follow after that would no longer include the phrase "In God We Trust"?

Could he change the name of a park, monument or other area and name it after himself or his childhood pet (or himself AND his childhood pet, thereby giving Yosemite a Stripper name)?

[Elendil's Heir]

...
[1] Could he write and sign an UHC executive order that automatically and immediately enrolls everyone in the country who makes less than . . . I dunno . . . $40K/yr into Medicare?

[2] Could he raise the highway speed limit across the country to 100 MPH?

[3] Could he order that the next minting of money by the Treasury and all that follow after that would no longer include the phrase "In God We Trust"?

[4] Could he change the name of a park, monument or other area and name it after himself or his childhood pet (or himself AND his childhood pet, thereby giving Yosemite a Stripper name)?

1. Yes, I suppose, but it would be pointless without passage of a bill by Congress (since Medicare eligibility is defined by Federal law) and an appropriation. Just a waste of paper.

2. Already set by law. An executive order to the contrary would be pointless.

3. Ditto, for more than 50 years.

4. I believe, but may be mistaken, that naming of national parks and the like is also done by statute. I know the President has statutory authority to create new national parks and monuments (as Clinton did in his last days in office), but any name he imposed upon a new park - especially if offensive or narcissistic - could be reversed by Act of Congress. Of course he might veto the bill, but it would surely be overridden.

Any of these things would almost certainly show up in later Articles of Impeachment as examples of the President's abuse of office.

[ivan astikov]

Could he ask for access to any high level intelligence or security secrets, just to satisfy his own curiosity?

[Elendil's Heir]

Could he ask for access to any high level intelligence or security secrets, just to satisfy his own curiosity?

We had a thread on this awhile ago. The consensus IIRC was that the President, as chief executive, could not lawfully be denied the opportunity to see any classified info he asked for, but that - like most if not all of his predecessors - he would be smart to do so only on a "need to know" basis. I've read in several reputable books that Presidents are not routinely told the real names of foreigners working covertly for the U.S. intelligence community, for instance.

[clayton_e]

We had a thread on this awhile ago. The consensus IIRC was that the President, as chief executive, could not lawfully be denied the opportunity to see any classified info he asked for, but that - like most if not all of his predecessors - he would be smart to do so only on a "need to know" basis.

What if he simply asked to see a copy of every single sheet of paper related to any and all investigation into extraterrestrial beings. Let's assume, for this example, that there is something out there and we know it.

Would the secret government groups really pass that info on (or even their existence to begin with)? Or would it be considered too dangerous for him to know? (hey, he doesn't need to know that when he's busy with trade and foreign relations and shaking cub scouts' hands)

[Telemark]

Or would it be considered too dangerous for him to know?
Almost by definition, the President is the one who decides that.

[Pashnish Ewing]

What if a sitting president pardoned everyone one who was in prison for, say, crimes related to marijuana offenses, and vowed to do the same to all those convicted in the future. Would it basically render marijuana offenses as not-punishable-by-jail-time (at least for the remainder of his/her term)? What about insider trading? Or murder?

[Elendil's Heir]

He could do that; the pardon power is plenary (but covers only Federal offenses, as I'm sure you know). But it would be political suicide, and might - nay, surely would - also lead to impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate for abuse of power.

[clayton_e]

And to think of that situation from a practical point of view... He can't simply sign the pardon for 100,000 (chosen out of thin air) and call it a night. He'd have to sign each one individually, I assume.. Which would mean signing his name over and over at a speed that probably wouldn't catch up to the number of marijuana crimes being committed and ticketed.

Weird, I know, but just figured I'd throw that realist p.o.v. from the technical side of things.

[friedo]

And to think of that situation from a practical point of view... He can't simply sign the pardon for 100,000 (chosen out of thin air) and call it a night. He'd have to sign each one individually, I assume.. Which would mean signing his name over and over at a speed that probably wouldn't catch up to the number of marijuana crimes being committed and ticketed.

Weird, I know, but just figured I'd throw that realist p.o.v. from the technical side of things.

The President's signature goes on hundreds, sometimes thousands of pieces of paper per day. He only signs the important ones by hand. For the rest, he's got a rubber stamp or a fancy auto-signing gizmo.

Also, I see no reason why he'd have to sign each pardon individually. A single proclamation listing all the names of those pardoned should be perfectly sufficient.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Well, as the outgoing president has shown, it's really not about what you're allowed, but what you can get away with.

Meaning, if he has the cabinet and congress on his side, if he can get the security agencies to pass down lies, if he has the whole nation enraptured and a media afraid to call him on anything, there's almost nothing he can't do. Like, say, start a war just to make his family and his vice president's company rich. If the aforementioned people don't like him so much, he's a lame duck.

Hell, if the President lines up his cards right, he could do away with the whole democracy. Hitler did it.

But I guess that's not a faithful answer to the OP. But it's reality.