Here’s another wildly hypothetical government question. Sorry.
If certain parts of the internet are to be believed, voters may get to choose this year between a Madrassa-trained sleeper-cell terrorist or a POW brainwashed by Asiatic Communists. So supposing the internet is right and we do elect some sort of super-villain type-- what would they be able to get away with? Assuming everybody is following the Constitution and other existing laws and recognizes this person as the lawful chief executive, but are otherwise uncooperative, what sorts of mayhem could a rogue chief executive do unilaterally? What if he lays out his plan for evil in his inaugural address-- would Congress be able to do a quickie impeachment then and there, or would he have a few weeks to do his evil bidding?
It would depend on how charismatic he was, I imagine. A president who can maintain popularity in the face of doing evil can just as often go further than a president who only does good but can’t get the faith of his electorate.
Theoretically, if he was sneaky about it, he could get us involved in a quagmire of an urban war in Asia, weaken the dollar to an extent not seen in the past 25 years, inflate the US debt to neverbefore seen heights, and reduce our moral standing in the eyes of the world. If he came right out and said it, though, Congress holds the purse strings and can limit his political appointments somewhat, so they could probably curtail too many nefarious activities until some snoop could dig up enough dirt to find grounds for impeachment.
It depends. Are you a big fan of Angela Landsbury and would you be upset if she were assassinated? If you’re under 65 the answer is probably “No.” So, the answer to the OP is: 1 assassination and a bunch of pissed off AARPers.
I’m not sure that it actually belongs in GQ, because I don’t think that there is a factual answer. It probably belongs in Gread Debates, because it’s about politics – though I can imagine some responses belonging in the BBQ Pit.
But, to answer the question, a person intelligent enough to succeed as a Manchurian candidate would probably do most of the damage behind the scenes, where it would be hard to detect, e.g., by compromising intelligence operations against the country they really represented.
Weakening the US economy would probably not be a major aim (and loyal Americans can do that by themselves), though helping their own country’s economy would be. Note that the main rivals to the US (the European Union and China) don’t really want to take the US down: they just want to do better than the US, and a very weak US economy doesn’t really help them do that.
Couldn’t a president suspend *habeas corpus *, declare martial law and generally make himself an oppressive totalitarian leader? Imagine another terrorist attack happens but it involves WMDs (let’s say a weaponized virus) and hits multiple cities. He can call up the National Guard units to maintain security and restrict travel and give orders to use deadly force against anyone who violates curfews or attempts to enter or leave the quarantine areas without proper authorization. He can also sign an executive order to suspend *habeas corpus * to detain suspected terrorists. He could even create an executive order similar to Executive Order 9066 that Roosevelt used against Japanese-Americans so he could round up and inter Muslims.
If the orders are not challenged or limited in scope or schedule, a president could become a *de facto * dictator. But you don’t have to have a Manchurian Candidate in order for that to happen.
Assuming that the “Manchurian candidate” scenario is based upon some type of mental defect, then the 25th Amendment allows the Vice President and the Cabinet could tell Congress that the President is unable to perform his duties and would immediately be relieved by the Vice President. That process could prevent him from doing anything whacko.
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution says that habeas corpus can only be suspended “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” And, in fact, Article I details the powers of Congress, not the President, implying that only Congress can legally suspend habeas corpus.
The president can only assume dictatorial powers if, when he makes the announcement that he’s now dictator, the rest of us shrug our shoulders and/or cheer.
If the american people want a dictator, then it doesn’t matter what the constitution says, we’ll have a dictator.
The trouble is that the American people don’t want a dictator. If the president orders the army to impose martial law, the army will refuse, because the soldiers in the army aren’t robots, they are American citizens who don’t want to live under a dictatorship any more than you do.
Of course Lincoln just ignored the ruling and our hypothetical Manchurian president could too, which could lead to impeachment, assuming that enough members of Congress have remained out of detention camps to have a quorum.
The Military Commissions Act limits habeas corpus of alien unlawful enemy combatants. So the prez could sign an EO to round up everyone in mosques, find the non-citizens (illegals, green-cards and work visas would all fall in that category) and have them all held indefinitely.