Say President Obama is visiting Australia. He has a few meetings with Quentin Bryce and what-not. His chief of staff (or whoever) informs him that Airforce One is all set, that he can board and they will be off. And he says, “Nah, I’m good”. After coming to the realization that the President isn’t looking to do any last minute shopping or get in another meeting, he just doesn’t want to leave. Ever. What happens? Can the Secret Service make him leave against his will? If he decided he still wants to be the POTUS, just from Australia, can anybody make him come home? Is that an impeachable offence? What if he has no desire to do any Presidenting, but also doesn’t plan to resign? Can the 25th Amendment be invoked? Say through whatever legal maneuvering needed, VP Biden assumes the Presidency, would Obama be allowed to just “go free” so to speak, is there a required debrief he would need to undergo? Would it matter if he were in North Korea or Iran when he made the decision?
If the President decides he doesn’t want to do any presidenting, and he doesn’t plan to resign, then Congress can impeach and convict him for dereliction of duty (or whatever other charge they want to come up with. Impeachment isn’t a criminal process.)
The Secret Service can’t (legally) make him leave, but they are required by law to protect him for as long as he is the President.
Australia could certainly kick him out if they so choose.
In order to invoke the 25th Amendment, one of two things needs to occur:
-
The President declares that he is unable to discharge his duties. The VP becomes Acting President until the President declares that he is able to resume his duties.
-
The Vice President, in concert with a majority of the Cabinet, declares that the President is unable to discharge his duties. The VP becomes Acting President until the President declares that he is fit to resume. If the VP and Cabinet wish to push the matter, Congress must decide the issue of the President’s capacity.
If Obama decides that he’d rather chill out on the beach and deliberately ignores all of his duties, the VP could probably persuade the Cabinet to go along with option 2. He could also probably persuade the Congress to eventually remove Obama so Biden would become President instead of Acting President until 2016.
(Interesting sidenote: does serving as Acting President for more than two years count as a presidential term for the purposes of the 22nd? I dunno.)
None of this has any bearing on where in the world the President is located at the time.
The President is still President when over-seas, so it wouldn’t provoke a crisis for a bit. With modern communications, he can run things just as well from Bondi Beach as he can from anywhere else. Air Force One has state of the art communications, so he’s good there. If the Aussies don’t kick him out, I don’t think there is a valid reason to invoke the 22nd Amendment. That means impeachment would be the other alternative.
After the 2014 elections Obama might as well go hang out on the beach with the rest of the lame ducks. The 2016 re-election cycle will be in full swing at that point, Obama-care will have kicked in and he will become a lightening rod for the DC blame game. I wouldn’t blame him one bit for taking the last two years easy. Why defect when you can have an all expense paid trip to where ever you want to go and claim it’s for helping people get re-elected.
I’ll save everyone else the Wikipedia trip and copy the text of the amendment:
I think “or acted as President” nails Acting Presidents to the same two-year maximum as actual Presidents.
What’s the nature of the extradition treaty between Australia and the US; and, does the President get a visa when he visits other countries? What are Australia’s normal rules for dealing with defections or political refugees?
Extradition is only for crimes, not political issues. Since he’s not committed a crime in the US, wouldn’t be covered by the US-Australian extradition treaty.
I believe heads of state are generally given diplomatic visas when entering other countries. The host country always retains the right to expel visiting diplomats.
The key word is “unable”. That doesn’t apply here. He is quite able, just unwilling. I think the VP et al would need to declare him nuts for deciding on this course of inaction, or something like that.
Didn’t Canada make GW Bush get a visa waiver in order to come into the country after he was elected due to his DUI.
The point is, there’s no burden of proof. It’s not a juridical process. So “unable” means whatever they say it means. “He’s decided to become a beach bum, so clearly he’s nuts and unable to perform his duties” is perfectly valid.
If the President objects, then Congress can make that same judgment, or not.
[QUOTE=drew870mitchell;16188101
I think “or acted as President” nails Acting Presidents to the same two-year maximum as actual Presidents.[/QUOTE]
I think you meant two TERM maximum.
For purposes of employment, official duties, and the like, unwilling IS the same as unable.
He would certainly be impeached by the house of reps as it currently stands, and probably convicted in the senate (the democrats aren’t going to stake their political careers on defending a president who is refusing to do anything even if they do control the senate). As others have mentioned, the house can pretty much impeach for any reason it wants to even though the constitution does vaguely lay out what impeachable offenses are (high crimes and misdemeanors?). But yeah, it’s not a criminal process and the house can impeach whenever and for whatever it chooses. But remember, impeachment does not remove a president from power. The senate, upon the house successfully impeaching, must then vote to convict. Clinton was impeached for example but never convicted, and thus remained in office until the normal end of his term.
If a president says he’s defecting and won’t be presidenting anymore the House and Senate can have him out of office in a day if they want to. If both houses are controlled by the opposition party they may not want to remove him from office, so the VP along with the cabinet might declare him unable to perform his duties, making the VP the acting president. Unless the real president tells the congress that he is able to perform his duties the VP would continue as acting president. At that point the congress would probably impeach both of them.
Was with you until the last sentence. Why both of them?
I wasn’t being serious about that part, maybe they like the VP and keep him. They have the power to remove presidents even if the VP and cabinet stage a coup. If the VP and cabinet declare the president unable to perform his duties congress can’t undo that unless the president tells the congress that he can perform his duties. But the congress can still impeach both of them if they don’t like the VP. It could all get messy if they impeach the VP and leave the elected president out there. It’s all pretty messy anyway, if the president actually defects I think there would be a rapid bi-partisan impeachment making the VP the actual president even if congress doesn’t like the guy.
I agree. “Unable” in this context means whatever the VP and the cabinet says it means, which could include “unable due to a lack of desire to do it”.
It’s an Amazing!
Not sure I would consider hanging on the beach in Cairns is a particularly nutty action. :dubious:
This would also be the clause that disqualifies Martin Sheen.
Well, the OP’s scenario is certainly highly unlikely, I mean for Obama to visit DPRK or Iran would require a lot of things to happen first as we don’t currently have diplomatic relations with either country. But let’s say Obama decides to do a Nixon-goes-to-China thing with one of them. But then while there he decides to stay. Besides essentially relinquishing the US Presidency, being that he is *not *just a private citizen but The Commander in Chief of all US armed forces this action could amount to defection and/or high treason.