It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Subsonic
That was a hilarious read! That read like some sort of comedy skit.
So if everyone bailed on Trump, that would be grounds for impeachment? Can you confirm this?
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
Pence is the only reason he hasn't been taken out by the 25th so far. All other members are in agreement.
Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president. When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term.
originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: pavil
Nixon was a wack-job, we survived it and Gordon Liddy as well.
The truth is ANYONE as President can make decisions we can't predict. To get our undies all in a bunch because we just recognized this little factoid seems a little silly to me.
The checks and balances WORK and are there for a reason no matter who's in office. No President has ever been able to do what they wanted and despite the Libs having fits it's not going to change.
originally posted by: network dude
If you read it closely, he can't do it alone. Which is the point. I don't know if you know who Ronald Reagan was, but in his last 4 years as president, he had dementia and Alzheimers, which degraded him quickly, and was still president. There are fail safes in place to ensure the big red button is respected. It's a good thing we have a system like this. (IMHO)
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Does Trump have any support within the GOP ?
Could the secretary of defense refuse to carry out a presidential order for a nuclear attack? The legal and constitutional aspects are not clear. The official doctrine that has been released says nothing about this question, and the cryptic public responses to official inquiries, even from Congress, indicate that it is not something that can be openly talked about. “Only the president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons” is essentially the only reply officials ever give to any questions about nuclear controls. Could the president simply fire the defense secretary and move on to the deputy secretary, the secretary of the Army and so on through the chain of command? Maybe. Such an action would at least slow things down, even if the refusal to carry out the order was illegal. But the secretary may not even be formally required to participate — U.S. Air Force doctrine does not indicate he is a necessary part of the chain of command, and holds that the president can communicate directly with the military, in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to order a nuclear strike.
There are many checks and balances built into the elaborate system to control America's nuclear weapons -- except when it comes to the sole decision-making of the president of the United States.
The Madman Theory forced the world to consider a more frightening option: That the man in charge of the nukes might not be rational at all.
The president has basically unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons, a seemingly insane system that flows pretty logically from America’s strategic doctrine on nuclear weapons. The US needs a system to launch weapons fast for deterrence to work properly, which means one person needs to be able to order the use of nukes basically unencumbered. The president is the only possible choice.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
THE RINOs better HURRY they have only a LITTLE time left before MIDTERMS...
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Gothmog
Ahh, so you would make a giant power grab and start issuing orders over the fitness of members of Congress, even though that's well outside the scope of your powers.
Good start there.