Frank's Musings

How do you remove a delusional person from the Presidency of the U.S.?  His authority is ultimately based on the willingness of those supposedly under his command to execute his orders.  Those who do not, including the military and law enforcement agencies, can, of course, be opposed by those who do.  In the end, it is civil control of the country that must reign supreme either through the electoral process or by organized unrest and rebellion.

The constitutional provision for dealing with a president who is deemed unable to perform as expected is the 25^th Amendment.  Its provisions depend on the agreement of a group of national office holders, who have been selected or appointed by the president with various degrees of loyalty to him, to certify his inability to serve.  The group determines their collective decision on both the ability of the incumbent president to “discharge the powers and duties of his office,:” and to determine whether his actions are consistent with the president’s sworn duty  “to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

After advising the Senate and the House of that decision, the Vice President is authorized to assume the Presidency on an acting basis, without the express consent of the Congress unless and until the President notifies the Congress that he is able to resume his duties.  Realistically, that is unlikely to happen.   As a matter of fact, it probably cannot happen unless the President loses consciousness or motor control of his body.  (The writers of the TV series, “The West Wing,” did invent, however, another eventuality of voluntary temporary suspension of a president’s duties.)

Therefore, removing the president from office during his elected term can only be done by extra-constitutional means.  That fact demonstrates the failure of the U.S. Constitution to assure the public’s lasting self-determination.  It does not guarantee that the winner of a presidential election will not act as if his or her victory is tantamount to being anointed by God to reign as an absolute monarch.  As we know from the record of the French Revolution and other governmental upheavals, that sort of change is likely to be bloody and very costly.  It is the threat of that outcome that is the most powerful card for a would-be dictator to play for preserving his freedom to do as he will.  As long as he does not pose a risk to the short-term consumerist and financial wealth of his support base, a strongman president of the U.S. is hard to remove.

Democratic autocracy is a dangerous distortion of the legal mechanism of the U.S. government.  The rule of law by itself is unable to protect the public from the whims of a president who ignores its human interests.  The laws must be reinforced with a wide commitment of everyone to living in an equitable society.  Laws are tools that can be used to implement many different objectives.  Without a set of common goals that treats every individual fairly, our rule of law can just as easily protect a wily manipulator who uses it to feed his narcissism.