I would be shocked if the Secret Service allowed the President of the United States to be put handcuffed in the back of a police car and tossed in the holding cell at the nearest jail.
I suspect the Secret Service would stop the POTUS from whatever overt illegal thing he is doing then drive him, forcibly if they had to, back to the White House and then let others figure what to do while they kept him locked in his gilded cage.
Especially the D.C. Metro jail. I don’t know if it’s still true, but G. Gordon Liddy mentioned in his autobiography that the District of Columbia has (or had) no prison facilities. If you were arrested in Washington on an outstanding traffic warrant, you could easily be tossed into a cell with a guy doing life for murder. That having been said though, would the Secret Service have the ability to ‘pull rank’ on the U.S. Park Police or D.C. Metro cops? What if they insisted on taking him in? My sister’s second husband was a commissioned Ranger with the US National Park Service. He was in charge of a SWAT team assigned to protect President Bush during the commemorative ceremonies at Pearl Harbor on the 50th anniversary of the attack. So at least in that situation, they were calling the shots. If push comes to shove, who prevails?
That’s how it worked on 24.
It would be pretty cool if a former secret service member would spill about this. I am guessing they have some kind of formal protocol to deal with this situation. If they can protect the president from harm, they can protect others from harm by the prez.
Some of the JFK documentaries discuss a confrontation between the Dallas Police and Secret Service at Parkland Hospital. JFK had died and the police wanted the body for their criminal investigation. Under Texas law they claimed that right.
The Secret Service literally grabbed the gurney and pushed their way out of the hospital. They spe off to the airport. I recall one ex agent saying they didn’t know if the plane would be prevented from taking off or not. They left as quickly as possible.
The Secret Service (at least in that case) felt they could ignore local police. I don’t think the matter was ever fully resolved by any courts.
Does anyone actually believe this would ever happen? Congressmen are partisan to the core. There’s no way they’d remove a president of their own party even if he were completely incoherent. And it will only be tried against the opposite party due to extreme partisan hostility in the absence of any credible symptoms; I don’t think enough persons in the legislative branch have the social awareness to remove someone because it’s actually necessary. It would be left to the executive staff to contain the poor madman.
It’s not up to Congress, initially. It’s up to the Vice President and the Cabinet, who of course are of the same party as the President. In no case would this result in a change of the party in control of the executive branch. Congress can’t do anything on their own, and only comes into play if the President is sane enough to object to his own removal.
I fail to see why either political party would prefer to have a madman in office, who could never be allowed to campaign or address the public, rather than have him replaced by a vice president of his own party. That would be a political disaster.
Of course, when Nixon looked like he was going off the deep end, it was congressional Republicans like Goldwater that helped persuade him to step down.
The cabinet isn’t always solely the President’s party. Many presidents have had opposite-party people in their cabinets.
In any case, the party issue is pretty moot, since there is a very high probability that a sane® Vice President would be available to take over, and he would be of the same party as the President.
While there may be one or two members from another party, the Cabinet as whole will be overwhemingly from the Presidents own party, which is what I meant by saying the Cabinet is of his own party.
I think they may have been relying on Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That and the US Marines sort of make local law enforcment moot.
William Manchester, in his excellent book about the tragedy in Dallas, The Death of a President, pointed out that in 1963 the assassination of the President was not a Federal offense (it was soon made one). The Texas authorities were actually on firm legal ground in insisting that they had jurisdiction - but given the emotions of the day, and the uncertainty among JFK’s traveling party as to just how broad a conspiracy they might be facing (Dallas was notoriously conservative and hostile to JFK), it’s easy to understand why they wanted to get the hell out of town, taking the President’s body with them.
Exactly.
Why would going blind cause the President to have to be removed?
As I said, I do recommend the book. Although it’s been at least 20 years since I read it, IIRC:
The President’s foes see his blindness (caused after he takes a blow to the head in a helicopter crash while at a summit with the Soviet premier) as evidence that he can’t do the job. His staff scrambles to set up some workarounds (he gets a Seeing Eye dog, memos are read aloud to him, a Federal judge is recruited to attest that the President knowingly has approved or vetoed bills, etc.), but public opinion eventually shifts from sympathy, to uncertainty, to outright hostility. The Vice President is an ambitious but weak-willed pawn of others who want to get the President out by any means possible, and he triggers a Cabinet vote to remove the President from office.