Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ahmeneeroe-v2 722 days ago
A wildly-rogue president executing a military coup has always been in the cards. Do you honestly think that such a thing was not possible until just now when this decision was issued?
1 comments

Possible? It's always absolutely been possible, but I've considered it much less likely than I do after this ruling.

As we saw during the first trump administration, the army was unwilling to go along with his every desire. A general even apologized for getting pulled into a photo op.

The US military is large and geographically diverse. I suspect that most would not carry out such an order. But you don't need most. You only need enough.

The problem for a theoretical coup group has always been what happens afterwards. Even if they were carrying out official orders from the president, you still potentially had to face the judiciary. The rest of the military might not come after you if the president orders them to stand down, but that still left the police open as an option.

The SC has now ruled that's not an issue.

I do understand a lot of the logic that the executive couldn't function if every action was litigated. But I look at other countries, such as the UK, where the prime minister in fact can be jailed for crimes, and I don't see it really being an issue. Seems better to me if no one is strictly above the law. Post WW2, we recognize that the military can issue and carry out illegal orders. We should extend that to the presidency.

The SC has essentially handed Biden a loaded gun. If I were him, I'd point it at the SC and fire, then point it at congress and appoint a new court that will take the loaded gun away from him. Because if Trump wins in November, you can be sure he will attempt to fire it.

While this is a well-organized and clearly-communicated comment, I believe the actual content is just hysterical fear-mongering.

A president has always had the "military coup" option. In fact, Putin also has the "violent overthrow of the US government" option (though he would probably use his own military).

While I freely admit I am frightened by the possible impacts of this ruling, I do not believe that it has, in this case, impaired my ability to look at the situation logically.

That said, as I mentioned in a different reply, I should have stuck to the legal implications around impeachment, rather than the practical. This decision states that the only remedy for a president breaking some laws is impeachment. At the same time, it says the president now has a legal, if not entirely reliable, means to avoid impeachment: Order the military to kill those who would impeach them.

Yes, that was always a theoretically practical option, but now it's also a legal option, and that's bad. A strong nation requires a strong legal system.