(October 14, 2017 at 4:50 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: A coup would require he be deposed outright by extralegal means, or that his powers permanently usurped by an individual or group without legal claim to the power, even if he remains nominally in the office.
If that does not happen, then I am not sure if any single act of insurbordination to prevent him from carrying out an action would qualify as a coup.
In my opinion, the most likely intervention in executive authority via extraordinary action that may involve the armed forces is not in the instance of preventing him from launching nuclear weapon, but in the case where he would refuse to recognize the result of an election which he lost.
As an aside, when clinton was re-elected in 1996, foreign observers who had followed the vitriolic republic efforts to impeach him thought the republicans and their friends on the armed forces might stage a coup rather than acccept his re-election, and some deployment of troops near Washington DC on the occasion of the second inauguration was interpreted by more than one foreign embassy as evidence of a military intervention in executive succession being underway.
At the time American commentators chuckled at the outlandish coup warning and the ignorance of the foreigners about the American democratic tradition and rule of law. Rather sobering how in just 24 years the suspicions of those ignorant foreigners no longer seem so outlandish.
Joan Quigley seems to have scored considerable success in usurping a great deal of President Reagan's power, without legal claim, while he remained nominally in office.
So, even a 'partial coup' is workable and there is precedence.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
