So you’re a manic imbecile.
That does help explain many things. Thanks for the insight.
A manic slacker? Mmm…no. 'Tis to laugh.
So your idea to protect the checks and balances in our system is a military coup?
It seems that my question was a false dilemma, and that Bridget Burke and Gyrate are correct.
Regards,
Shodan
That would be the Abraham Lincoln who stood for re-election in 1864, even though he thought he was going to lose, and his successor’s policies would finally destroy the Union. The Abraham Lincoln who wrote this:
[QUOTE=President Lincoln]
This morning [August 23, 1864], as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards. A. LINCOLN
[/QUOTE]
Lincoln was committed to the Constitution and the electoral process, even though he feared that he would be the last President of the Union.
So don’t point to Lincoln in support of your military coup.
So, could this happen I.e. a duly elected President being prevented from taking or exercising the office? Sure. Scenarios can be imagined where possibly this maybe happens. Could it happen now, or under the current circumstances? Not a chance.
There are many reasons for this.
First, there is no entity to let or not let him take office. There’s also no entity to give the presidency to someone else. That kills your scenario right there. Those generals you see on tv actively subverting presidential orders are fiction. In real life, these generals are human beings, who took an oath.
Second, even if there were widespread apprehension of Trump’s ability or intent, the time to rebel is when he issues an illegal order. The rebellion would take the form of refusal to carry out that order, likely followed by a resignation of their position and likely their commission.
Your apparent notion that Trump would be disastrous to the point of destroying the republic is not universally shared, this also kills your scenario.
Maybe if you had come up with a hypothetical candidate who promises to order the annihilation of anyone under 18 the moment he takes office, that candidate winning the election might prompt the formation of some sort of coalition of not-evil trying to prevent the candidate being sworn in. Even then, such a candidate would have the support of at least the majority of those who bothered to vote, and civil war would be more likely than an “extra-constitutional inauguration”. Anyway, I hope even you would see this hypothetical is quite different from the premise of Trump getting elected.
Uhh, yeah a whole lot of grist. Almost the entire article is about how hard it was for a sitting President to revoke military law in one state and your proposal is to let the military choose the president.
Anyway, there was still a bunch of stuff that wasn’t quite settled about the Constitution before and during the civil war, much less nowadays.
Because that sort of thing has happened in many other countries before, and because I’ve heard third- or fourth-hand rumours that there are such plans under consideration.
It’s never happened in America, but then, we’ve never had Donald Trump as president before.
Beyond that, we’re not electing a dictator, we’re electing a chief executive, with relatively limited powers.
The *right *way to do it is to let the person (whoever it is) take office, and then rely on whatever mechanisms are in place to limit any dangerous actions (i.e. 2 person rule for nuclear launches, Congress controls money, Federal judiciary power, etc…) and then if need be, impeach and remove them for trying those actions.
The members of the Electoral College, of course, have the Constitutional authority to reverse whatever outcome is reached on November 8. (FWIW, G.W. Bush’s campaign had contemplated trying to persuade electors to ratify the popular vote outcome, if he had won the popular vote but Gore had won more electoral votes.)
This is one of the glaring weaknesses in our political system, one of the places where the outcome of the election could be ‘hacked,’ as it were, and nobody could do a damn thing about it, because the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, third paragraph) really does give them that authority. Whoever gets the votes of 270 electors is the next President, period.
We really need to amend the Constitution to remedy that. Because norms, as we know all too well by now, don’t always hold up. And the longer our political system has this vulnerability, the more likely it will be that someone will use it to change the outcome of an election.
It’s a familiar concept:
Just one of a great number of ways in which you’re limited.
SlackerInc, you have the worst political instincts of pretty much anyone on this message board, yet you think you’re a genius.
You’re not. You have no clue. You’re the one person I can actually identify who would run a political campaign even more incompetently that Trump has run his. I’m not saying that you are dumb, or that you hold unconventional political views. I’m saying you have literally everything to learn about politics. You’re very bad at it, and you should listen more and talk less on these sort of subjects.
Sure, a president installed by the military isn’t a figurehead.
Until he does something the military doesn’t like. :dubious:
Once the military genie is out of the bottle, it doesn’t go back in.
Really. Even if the coup leaders were so superhumanly honorable as to arrange to have themselves executed as soon as lawful civilian authority is restored, at the very best you just punted the whole issue to the next election wherein a more competent, better prepared populist leader will rally all the former Trumpists and the people disgusted at the coup to elect a President AND Congress with a solid mandate to settle the score. Lather, rinse, repeat…
“Battlestar Galactica” was not a documentary.
Seriously, if he’s elected, he’ll take office. As others pointed out, there’s checks and balances for a siting president to meet. If he or she doesn’t meet these, it’s impeachment time. For Trumpy Wumpy, that’d be in the first 3 weeks. 
I know! It is awesome that citizens who join the military still get to have their say just like everyone else. AND STILL, no matter which fool the people as a whole elect, our military as a group SHUTS THE FUCK UP and deals (and probably says “Jesus Christ” a lot).
I have to seriously wonder if the immature fools advocating for violent revolt are so stupid as to think they personally won’t suffer along with everyone else.
He’ll be too busy suing his detractors to do anything unconstitutional.
And he’ll be under investigation for dismissing all court cases against him. “You’re all losers. YUGE ones. I win. And I’m fining all of you.” 
As he has done thru his entire presidency Obama would be handle Trump with class and grace… if he wins. There is no way the first black president taints his legacy by refusing to cede power or encourage anyone else to do so. Hillary would never do that either, not in their natures.
America is not a person, or an office. We have survived weak and stupid presidents before and if Trump wins, we would again. Its why we have check and balances in our Constitution.
I think Trump would be a disaster as a president, but 2018 would be great year for Dems and holding the House in 2020 and hopefully more state houses we can redraw the map a bit and get some things done.
I worry more about what this says to our children tho when we elect a man they have seen be an ass and call people names for over a year now as president. Makes me worried for my daughters… but we would go on and just keep going. Its what I think America does best… we just “keep swimming” 