# How much damage could a crazy POTUS do? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 2, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754 "2016-03-02T19:19:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/41 "2016-03-03T03:29:40Z")
The damage would almost solely be in reputation if you’re talking about what one person could do single-handedly. Now if you’re talking about a situation where he has numerous loyal toadies who do not question at all what they’re told to do, things might be different. But there would probably have to be a great deal of them to actually get anything significant accomplished, and they would all have to be absolutely blind in obedience. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/42 "2016-03-03T14:28:09Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > In the case of nuking a country without provocation, military officers would have grounds to refuse, though. They’re only obligated to follow lawful orders. The crazier the order, the more likely they are to conclude that it is not lawful. I think that is the only possible answer to the question. Unlawful orders can be and, we hope, will be refused. A recent news mention of John Demjanjuk made this point clearly. As for the 25th amendment, I don’t think there is any way of forcing them to give a medical reason, just conclude he is unfit. Same with impeachment. Charge him with “high crimes” (which, if I understand properly, are not necessarily criminal acts as usually understood, but policy acts) and impeach, then convict him. My HS civics teacher claimed that had Andrew Johnson been convicted, the US might have moved to a modified parliamentary system in which a president who lost the confidence of congress could be impeached. Of course, it would still have required 2/3 of the senate, which is a pretty high bar. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/43 "2016-03-03T14:36:49Z")
Posse Comitatus means that it is illegal for the military to fight on US soil. This means any order from the president for the military to assassinate people via drone strike would be illegal. All military personnel have been taught to ignore illegal orders. I assume there is something similar for the CIA but am not sure. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/44 "2016-03-03T14:50:53Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Posse Comitatus means that it is illegal for the military to fight on US soil. This means any order from the president for the military to assassinate people via drone strike would be illegal. All military personnel have been taught to ignore illegal orders. > I assume there is something similar for the CIA but am not sure. Posse Comitatus, as a law, only means that it’s prohibited for the federal Armed Forces to enforce “domestic policy” (generally Federal law or executive orders) within the States. Exceptions ([per Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Exclusions_and_limitations)): > [@](#): > > There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include: > [ul] > [li]Army and Air National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state;[/li][li] Federal military personnel used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.[/li][li] Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is nuclear materials.[/li][li] Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command[/li][/ul] The exception very specifically permitting the Armed Forces to fight within the states is in case of declared insurrection (2nd bullet). And, of course, the logical implicit permission to fight within the states to repel foreign invasion. I don’t know whether the assumption that domestic assassination is explicitly illegal has strong legal backing. But perhaps someone more savvy about the law about covert operations can address that. I will note that the JSOC exception dovetails to some extent with intelligence covert paramilitary operations, since they operate in similar domains, so maybe a JSOC drone would be allowed. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/45 "2016-03-03T16:03:25Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Posse Comitatus means that it is illegal for the military to fight on US soil. This means any order from the president for the military to assassinate people via drone strike would be illegal. All military personnel have been taught to ignore illegal orders. The Posse Comitatus Act, as amended, makes it illegal for the Army and Air Force (not the whole military, btw[sup]1[/sup]) to engage in domestic law-enforcement actions. It certainly does not prevent them from fighting on US soil. If the Russians were to invade Alaska, the army wouldn’t just stand around twiddling their thumbs. [sub]1. The Dept of the Navy has adopted regulations regarding the Navy and Marine Corps that are substantially similar to the Act. The Coast Guard is not covered by the Act and regularly engages in domestic law enforcement in US waters.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/46 "2016-03-03T18:28:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > For nuke launches, the SecDef has to give the green light, IIRC. Two-man rule. This is not correct. Someone in the Presidential Cabinet (i.e. someone who’s appointment was confirmed by the Senate, typically the Secretary of Defense but it could be another if the SecDef is not available) is required to _confirm_ that the order is legitimate and that the President is of sound mind, but the President has exclusive authority for the order. That may seem like a fine point since anyone called upon to confirm a launch order they disagreed with could deny the legitimacy or argue against the soundness of the President’s judgment (albeit facing future repercussions for doing so) but technically they are not reponsible for authorizing the launch. The “two man rule” is a general principle that any hazardous or critical operations should have two responsible agents to assure that procedures and instructions are carried out with appropriate safeguards and quality checks. With respect to the launch of ICBMs or deployment of nuclear weapons by the USAF, AFI 91-104 requires that two operators independently confirm the order and arm the system to assure that neither error nor individual maliciousness results in an unauthorized launch. This is different from confirmation of the executive order and is performed at the operational level. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/47 "2016-03-03T19:56:48Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This is not correct. Someone in the Presidential Cabinet (i.e. someone who’s appointment was confirmed by the Senate, typically the Secretary of Defense but it could be another if the SecDef is not available) is required to _confirm_ that the order is legitimate and that the President is of sound mind, but the President has exclusive authority for the order. That may seem like a fine point since anyone called upon to confirm a launch order they disagreed with could deny the legitimacy or argue against the soundness of the President’s judgment (albeit facing future repercussions for doing so) but technically they are not reponsible for authorizing the launch. > > The “two man rule” is a general principle that any hazardous or critical operations should have two responsible agents to assure that procedures and instructions are carried out with appropriate safeguards and quality checks. With respect to the launch of ICBMs or deployment of nuclear weapons by the USAF, AFI 91-104 requires that two operators independently confirm the order and arm the system to assure that neither error nor individual maliciousness results in an unauthorized launch. This is different from confirmation of the executive order and is performed at the operational level. > > Stranger Ignorance fought. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/48 "2016-03-03T23:04:16Z")
I think a lot of these rules could be broken by a popular enough president. Say President Crazypants signs an executive order funneling tons of money from wherever it’s supposed to go to building infrastructure in the aftermath of a disaster, both aiding the people affected and securing employment for the devestated area. The Supreme Court decides that this is an overreach of power. Could a good enough politician, in a bad enough time, not convince enough people that the Supreme Court is screwing then over to just ignore the Court? With enough popularity, what could anyone do about it? ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/49 "2016-03-03T23:10:05Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > This is not correct. Someone in the Presidential Cabinet (i.e. someone who’s appointment was confirmed by the Senate, typically the Secretary of Defense but it could be another if the SecDef is not available) is required to _confirm_ that the order is legitimate and that the President is of sound mind, but the President has exclusive authority for the order. That may seem like a fine point since anyone called upon to confirm a launch order they disagreed with could deny the legitimacy or argue against the soundness of the President’s judgment (albeit facing future repercussions for doing so) but technically they are not reponsible for authorizing the launch. > > The “two man rule” is a general principle that any hazardous or critical operations should have two responsible agents to assure that procedures and instructions are carried out with appropriate safeguards and quality checks. With respect to the launch of ICBMs or deployment of nuclear weapons by the USAF, AFI 91-104 requires that two operators independently confirm the order and arm the system to assure that neither error nor individual maliciousness results in an unauthorized launch. This is different from confirmation of the executive order and is performed at the operational level. > > Stranger But this is different than the chain of command for other types of military orders, correct? The President tells the SecDef to attack St. Louis, and the SecDef relays the order to the military; you can’t have the Ag Sec confirm the order for the combatant commander. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/50 "2016-03-03T23:17:58Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I’ll note that while the 25th Amendment gives the VP and cabinet to the power to temporarily remove the President from power in the event that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” neither the amendment nor any law details exactly what constitutes such an inability. > > “The President is unable to discharge his duties because he’s nucking futz” would therefore be an option available to them. > > Section 4 of the 25th Amendment famously sets up a possible showdown, where the deposed President can transmit another message saying “no, I’m fine,” and then it’s up to Congress to decide if a disability actually exists. By the times things got that far, though, you’d probably be looking at an impeachment. That’s a good point. When we think about “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, we naturally assume that the writer means “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office _due to a diagnosis of a medical condition fulfilling the following criteria…that is made by a duly licensed and authorized physician recognized by the National Board of Medical Competency Adjudications Federal Elected Official Subcommittee as competent to perform POTUS medical examinations under the following regulations…and that is properly notated on Form M10, signed in indelible ink, counterstamped with the authorizing seal of the applicable board of medical regulatory agencies, and submitted as an official agenda item on the Cabinet Docket of Medical Affairs and processed according to the applicable bylaws of that docket department._” ---
**Author:** ![GiantRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/51 "2016-03-04T01:05:56Z")
Various National Guard units routinely work very closely with domestic law enforcement. Usually in technical or intelligence support capacities. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/52 "2016-03-04T02:03:35Z")
But that’s under command of their state governor, not federal command. The National Guards are a sort of weird mix of state and federal. ---
**Author:** ![bomberswarm2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@bomberswarm2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bomberswarm2)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/53 "2016-03-04T03:09:02Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > (Hypothetical incoming) > > Suppose we elect a new President (feel free to call him “Hillary Clinton” Fixed. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/54 "2016-03-04T03:13:44Z")
> [@GiantRat](#): > > Various National Guard units routinely work very closely with domestic law enforcement. Usually in technical or intelligence support capacities. The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to National Guard units, except when federalized. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/55 "2016-03-04T03:47:18Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > (Hypothetical incoming) > > Suppose we elect a new President (feel free to call him “Tronald Dump” for the purposes of this exercise) incidents. > [@bomberswarm2](#): > > Originally Posted by **markdash** > (Hypothetical incoming) > > Suppose we elect a new President (feel free to call him “Hillary Clinton” > > Fixed. Moderator Warning. **bomberswarm2**. This is an official warning for changing a quote that someone else made. If you had bothered to read beyond the OP you might have noticed that **markdash** got a moderator NOTE for bring politics into GQ. Your continuation of bringing politics into a factual GQ thread is worthy of a second warning. I’ll leave it at one for tonight. **samclem** ---
**Author:** ![Asuka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@Asuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asuka)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2016, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/56 "2016-03-04T07:56:48Z")
Here’s a recent event about what an inadvertent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act can do, even if done for helpful reasons. On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received “administrative actions” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/57 "2016-03-05T13:29:27Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I think a lot of these rules could be broken by a popular enough president. Say President Crazypants signs an executive order funneling tons of money from wherever it’s supposed to go to building infrastructure in the aftermath of a disaster, both aiding the people affected and securing employment for the devestated area. The Supreme Court decides that this is an overreach of power. Could a good enough politician, in a bad enough time, not convince enough people that the Supreme Court is screwing then over to just ignore the Court? With enough popularity, what could anyone do about it? This is usually how such violations work. (Think “Patriot Act” or “waterboarding”). Two things are important here - assuming the world is still around afterwards, note the effect of the world court and Nuremburg - what may have been acceptable at the time will not necessarily be acceptable 30 years later. In fact, there are a few CIA operatives who are due to spend years in prison in Italy if they set foot in Europe, due to a “rendition” (kidnapping). Germany and others are still prosecuting concentration camp guards well into their 90’s. Even this: > [@](#): > > In March 2004, the Justice Department under Ashcroft ruled that the Stellar Wind domestic intelligence program was illegal. The day after the ruling, Ashcroft became critically ill with acute pancreatitis. President Bush sent his White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. to Ashcroft’s hospital bed. They wanted him to sign a document reversing the Justice Department’s ruling. But the semi-conscious Ashcroft refused to sign; Acting Attorney General James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel for DOJ, were there to back him up.[19] I repeat my earlier point, not everyone in the chain of command is a killer robot - many people have principles. Spy thrillers to the contrary, not everyone weak enough to be a robot killer is incredibly competent. Stories abound about the ineptitude, for example, of the KGB or Stasi. Oliver North or Gordon Liddy were not amazingly competent operatives. The Watergate bunch were caught by a security guard just doing his job. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/58 "2016-03-05T14:30:39Z")
I had never thought of it before, and now I have the Damocles Mayonnaise Jar to worry about. Thanks **dracoi**. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/59 "2016-03-05T15:17:12Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I had never thought of it before, and now I have the Damocles Mayonnaise Jar to worry about. Thanks **dracoi**. Yeah, thats why we maintain a strategic supply of Maple Syrup. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754/60 "2016-03-05T15:22:30Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > My question is, what safeguards are in place to prevent the President from acting in these areas? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that he is of sound body and mind and therefore cannot be removed from his post for medical reasons. Impeachment/removal is another avenue that I would like to ignore for the sake of the hypothetical, although it would surely occur rapidly after some of the above incidents. Seriously ? Most everyone has an oath upon taking office or position, to protect and defend the constitution of the US, from enemies foreign and domestic. So your looney president would go to Dallas and take a bullet, or someone would take one for the team and kill him or her, if it was that type of situation regarding nukes. There might even be charges brought about, if they dont kill the whacko. Declan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-damage-could-a-crazy-potus-do/747754.md?page=4)