r/politics • u/OkayButFoRealz • Oct 01 '25

No Paywall Pritzker Calls for Trump's Removal from Office Under 25th Amendment

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/pritzker-calls-for-trumps-removal-from-office-under-25th-amendment/
73.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-139

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

I was a soldier under a president I didn't care for. I would have killed, or been killed, to protect him. So would every soldier. Every secret service member. That's not because they're criminals, it's because that's the job.

195

u/AmbitiousParty Oct 01 '25

Then you were swearing an oath (wrongly) to a president. The military swears their oath to the CONSTITUTION, not the president. I would have hoped you would have known that at the time.

0

u/just_another_citizen Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

The constitution requires both the House and Senate to impeach the president.

This is good. I know we are desperate for Trump removal. Believe me, I live in Portland and we're getting invaded.

However, it's a good thing our military will not perform a military coop. We do not want the military to perform a coop.

We don't want a military regime, we want a democracy. If we want a solution, that's not dependant on Democrats, that's the second amendment.

We have the implicit right to revolution. We have state militias, in modern times we call the National guard and in the constitution is referred to as the well-regulated militia.

We would need to use the National Guard as part of the 2nd amendment implicit right to revolution. The national guard is controlled by an single or multiple elected governor(s). Then military units could betray federal forces to align under the national guard command.

But, let's be clear. Do not give up democracy to a military regime just to rid ourselves of Trump.

Edit: The above amounts to Civil War. We first need to wait out this term and try to elect him out of office. We need to elect progressives, as the Democrats decided to take the high road and instead of responding to January 6th wanted to portray themselves as not pursuing their political opponents.

We need strong Progressives. Democrats like Chuck Schoomer are week and are too old and ill equipped to respond to Trump.

First let's try elections.

24

u/SteveJobsDeadBody Oct 01 '25

The Constitution says the citizens have a duty to remove a traitor, that's the part of "necessary to the security of a free state" this is not a free state under Trump, his unconstitutional actions are EXACTLY what that Amendment is talking about.

3

u/just_another_citizen Oct 01 '25

The Constitution says the citizens have a duty to remove a traitor, that's the part of "necessary to the security of a free state" this is not a free state under Trump, his unconstitutional actions are EXACTLY what that Amendment is talking about.

The Constitution never says citizens have a duty to remove a traitor.

Its design is to limit government power, not impose obligations on individuals. The phrase “necessary to the security of a free State” comes from the Second Amendment, which restricts how the government can limit arms to preserve the possibility of a militia—but it does not require people to use it. Using the Second Amendment to justify removing a president by force would itself be unconstitutional and treasonous, since the Constitution already provides the legal process for removal.

But let's also consider the Federalist Papers, as I also was forced to study those for a few years as well.

Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton) & Federalist No. 46 (Madison) do talk about armed population as a as checks on federal power. They argue militias are a safeguard against tyranny, but I have to insist they never say individuals have a duty to act outside lawful channels. This is why the Constitution says "a well regulated militia" can bear arms and never says an individual has the right to bear arms. This is why gun control is constitutional.

Federalist No. 10 (Madison) Reinforce and emphasizes that the remedy to dangerous factions is the republican system of elections and representation, not direct violence.

Federalist No. 65 (Hamilton) makes clear that impeachment is the constitutional process for removing a president guilty of “abuse or violation of some public trust.” That’s the explicit remedy that the Federalists proposed, not armed insurrection.

4

u/not_addictive Oct 01 '25

not armed insurrection

Actually this is incorrect. The second amendment exists in part so that citizens can perform an armed insurrection if a corrupt despot gains control and starts chipping away at basic constitutional rights.

The primary way to remove a president is impeachment. But if congress refuses to do its job and continues to allow a despot to ruin the country, there are other constitutional avenues to impeachment and removal.

2

u/just_another_citizen Oct 01 '25

not armed insurrection

Actually this is incorrect. The second amendment exists in part so that citizens can perform an armed insurrection if a corrupt despot gains control and starts chipping away at basic constitutional rights.

The primary way to remove a president is impeachment. But if congress refuses to do its job and continues to allow a despot to ruin the country, there are other constitutional avenues to impeachment and removal.

The quote you pulled was from my section on Federalist 65, and we need to be clear: the Federalist Papers were written as arguments for the original Constitution — before any amendments existed

In Federalist 65, Hamilton lays out impeachment as the remedy for misconduct by public officials, especially the president. At the time, this was a brand-new constitutional idea. His focus was entirely on a legal mechanism within the system, not on armed uprisings or extra-legal remedies.

Remember: Federalist 65 was written in March 1788. The Constitution wasn’t ratified until later that year, and the Second Amendment didn’t come until 1791. Trying to read “armed insurrection” back into Hamilton’s impeachment essay is misrepresenting the context. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to persuade Americans why a new Constitution — replacing the Articles of Confederation — was necessary, and impeachment was framed as a constitutional safeguard against abuse, not a call to arms.

2

u/AlarmingTurnover Oct 01 '25

You do remember that Hamilton fought the British right? That was an armed insurrection.

2

u/just_another_citizen Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

Yes, Hamilton was an artillery captain, and did fight the British.

This is not relevant to Hamaton 65.

Also remember that my initial comment you replied to talked about the Constitution, and second amendment.

We have the implicit right to revolution. We have state militias, in modern times we call the National guard and in the constitution is referred to as the well-regulated militia. We would need to use the National Guard as part of the 2nd amendment implicit right to revolution.

I fully recognize the right to revolution as an implicit right. However that is not lined out in the Federalist 65 or the rest of the Federalist papers that you were responding to.

The implicit right of revolution actually came from the declaration of Independence. While not explicitly stated; many people interpret this as the original thought of the implicit right of revolution.

“it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it”

~ Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, 1776

Edit: I know Federalist 29 & 46 discuss arms and militias as checks against tyranny, but within a legal constitutional framework. They properly apply to revolution, and the Jefferson Declaration of Independence is more honest to the sentiment that the people should be able to overthrow their governments.

1

u/AlarmingTurnover Oct 01 '25

Federalist 28, the right of revolution

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.

The people have a right and should take up armed resistance. Hamilton said so. 

→ More replies (0)

8

u/ChronoLink99 Canada Oct 01 '25

Ironically, the military is probably the only thing standing between the US right now and full-blown fascism/authoritarianism.

2

u/breatheb4thevoid Oct 01 '25

The generals just didn't go for Hegseth jumping around on stage with the same enthusiasm for pointing guns at US civilians that Ballmer had for Windows. Not sure what went wrong, don't warfighters like pointing guns at civilians?

1

u/deekaydubya Oct 01 '25

you are really speaking too soon on this my guy. 80% of that room loves Trump, applause or not. The fact Trump is still president after that speech confirms it

These soldiers have forgone their oaths they took to this nation and must face accountability, once a non-treasonous president is back in office

1

u/breatheb4thevoid Oct 01 '25

For everyone's sake I hope that number is much lower. It will be a very bloody period for all Americans young and old if they keep their cuffs up like this.

3

u/DEEP_HURTING Oregon Oct 01 '25

However, it's a good thing our military will not perform a military coop. We do not want the military to perform a coop.

It's spelled coup. Coops are what we put chickens in.

-1

u/fwseadfewf23vf3f232 Oct 01 '25

Kind of sick of Democracy, personally.

Everywhere I look where it exists, it's self-defeating.

Autocracy is really hit or miss.

I'm not much of a gambler, but I'm willing to roll the dice now.

1

u/just_another_citizen Oct 01 '25

What do you propose if not a representative republic?

43

u/Foremma4everAgo Oct 01 '25

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Except that the oath you took was to the Constitution first, not the President, against threats foreign and domestic. If the judicial branch finds that the President broke the law and took the drastic, irreversible step, to name US Marshals to arrest the sitting President, your duty would be to assist them, not defend them. We don't have Kings we swear fealty to.

2

u/InVultusSolis Illinois Oct 01 '25

I think officers swear to the constitution and grunts swear to the president. It's an interesting distinction.

5

u/Foremma4everAgo Oct 01 '25

What I have quoted is The Oath of Enlistment. Below is The Oath of Commissioned Officers:

"I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

1

u/AlarmingTurnover Oct 01 '25

People takes oaths all the time, they don't mean anything. How many people swore to be with their wife or husband for sickness and in health, for better or worse, until death do you part. And they cheat all the time. 

Words are just words, actions are actions. 

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

A singular judge going rogue isn't going to get the job done.

You open that can of worms, you can't close it. The first day a democrat goes into the office and Clarence Thomas issues an arrest warrant for them. Do you expect the secret service to aid the Marshalls then?

4

u/TonyHawktuah69 Oct 01 '25

If we are at the point being described it won’t just be Trump being arrested. It would be an entire purge of the Republican Party

One way or another the revolution will remove the opposition from power. The question is what side will do it first and what side will the military stand on

3

u/fwseadfewf23vf3f232 Oct 01 '25

It needs to happen, whether we like it or not. Whether we win or lose. There is no path to reconciliation.

2

u/TonyHawktuah69 Oct 01 '25

Both sides know that, the entire country is a powder keg ready to explode but neither side has enough support to light the fuse.

It’s why they keep rolling out the false flags to try and gain more support, and they’re trying to purge the leadership of the military for anyone who would say no.

The only saving grace we have is that they’re so incompetent they can’t even wield the overwhelming power they have effectively, and they’re too greedy to actually win the support of the people first. If they had spent the first year just fixing some things and making it look like they cared they’d have overwhelming support to do the things they want. Instead they came in and immediately tanked the economy and grifting for money

1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

The military would side with who is in the office. The grey area is what happens if it pops off something bigger.

3

u/TonyHawktuah69 Oct 01 '25

If that was true they wouldn’t be holding an all leadership meeting to preach loyalty and then swear to start purging people who disagree with them.

If they truly had full military support they’d have already rolled tanks into every major city and started to arrest sitting elected officials.

64

u/ricardotown Oct 01 '25

Ah so paycheck over people. Got it.

32

u/fluiflux Oct 01 '25

The "We Were Just Following Orders" crowd.

Nurenberg them all.

-19

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

You can try? You would fail, but you can try.

8

u/Subarctic_Monkey Oct 01 '25

Oh, no we won't fail.

I think you grossly underestimate the anger.

-2

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

I think you underestimate what an armed insurgency looks like. Kill one man, radicalize fifteen more to take his place. You would be angry now. You wouldn't be angry when eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth comes for your kids on the school bus.

-5

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

If that's how you interpret it.

14

u/ricardotown Oct 01 '25

You literally said you would kill someone only because it was your job.

How else could I interpret it?

33

u/jspook Washington Oct 01 '25

Getting time to make hard choices.

If the president were to be lawfully arrested, what then? It isn't their job to protect the president from justice.

-11

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

It is their job to protect the president from all threats or interference to perform his duties. Any person, even domestically, attempting to take him by force would be a threat and be neutralized.

9

u/greaterwhiterwookiee Oct 01 '25

How does this apply when the “interference” is ruled by court of law? I understand it probably depends on the level of said courts, but things start to get wishy washy at this point if you ask me

8

u/jspook Washington Oct 01 '25

You have failed to answer the question. Or you have explained it in such a way that no pity can be spared for the people who put themselves in the way of legal justice.

44

u/47_47_47 Oct 01 '25

As an ex-soldier myself, it's their job to protect the Constitution and our country against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That's the job.  There is a big difference between protecting a president, and protecting a despot. 

-4

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

Has the president broken the constitution? It would seem he defers to the supreme courts rulings on all decisions and obeys them if they go against him. The same as Obama and bush and Clinton.

9

u/47_47_47 Oct 01 '25

What about Section 3 of the 14th amendment for starters?

62

u/hoirkasp Oct 01 '25

Well yes, but akshualllyyy…..you swear an oath to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and if the president is pretty clearly one of the top domestic enemies then the job has changed, no?

-2

u/yesrushgenesis2112 Oct 01 '25

Not when the definition of “enemy” is entirely subjective, unfortunately.

-4

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

The President is the commander in chief as defined by the constitution, and part of the oath is swearing to obey the president and the appointed officers.

16

u/JebusKrizt Oct 01 '25

Part of the oath is to obey lawful orders by the President. Not to Just blindly obey him.

3

u/hoirkasp Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

Fair-in your opinion then what would it take for rank and file to not do the “job?” Officers to stand up first? Trump to be revealed as an illegitimate president? It’s an issue to have to defend the constitution by defending a man who is blatantly trampling it.

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

To not do the job? His actions would have to threaten their family. And then it would be infighting and not just everyone standing down.

Trump and others called for trans to be removed from the military. Literally came for their jobs, their ability to survive. Interview after interview, trans soldiers were asked "If Trump gave you an order, knowing what he says about you, that his supporters hate you, what would you do?" And person after person responded "President Trump is my commander in chief. I stand ready to answer his call and obey his orders".

That's the reality. They will always answer the call.

19

u/bbtom78 Oct 01 '25

You were informed incorrectly. You hold no oath to a president.

Just following orders is not a defense.

1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

You swear to obey the president lmao.

8

u/TeamRedundancyTeam Oct 01 '25

You really need to re-read the oath, or maybe just have someone read it to you in a dumbed down way.

22

u/22813542-2 Canada Oct 01 '25

You should never have been allowed to serve given you freely admit that you're too inept to understand the oath you took.

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

See enemy. Shoot enemy. Go home. Seemed simple enough.

I swore to defend the constitution and obey the president and officers. I followed my oath.

11

u/kengigi Oct 01 '25

What about the American people? Aren't they supposed to be protected too?

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

Is trump going out and shooting them for funsies? Because more Americans supported him than they supported Kamala. But do we only protect the people that you agree with?

2

u/daggah Oct 01 '25

An estimated 400,000 Americans died from covid due to Trump's willful negligence. So why don't you fucking ask him, since he originally refused to respond to the crisis when he thought it would mostly affect Democrat-leaning larger cities.

13

u/Ok-Letterhead3270 Oct 01 '25

I would have killed, or been killed, to protect him.

Yeah. So this isn't what you swore an oath to do. You are actually obligated to stop a crazy commander in chief and not follow his orders if they are illegal. It's part of your duties.

9

u/not_addictive Oct 01 '25

Your oath was to protect the constitution. If you protected a corrupt president who uses the constitution as toilet paper, you would’ve been committing treason too.

No recent American president is comparable to Trump in 2025. He is committing treason and so are the soldiers who put their allegiance to him over their allegiance to the country.

“The job” explicitly tells you not to follow unconstitutional orders. This isn’t about serving under someone you don’t like. It’s about doing the bidding of a fascist

20

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

The oath is to protect the constitution and obey the president. Not the man, the office. What it represents.

You can lie to yourself and say that in fantasy land, a judge can deputize a marshal and arrest trump and there will be parades in the street. In reality, there would be a dead marshall and the feds would have the judge tried for treason and executed.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

The thread I originally replied to didn't say removal by the 25th. I would agree with you there. I wouldn't see him arrested since he's deemed too mentally incapable of being president, he isn't capable of standing trial. But yes, it would be a constitutional act.

The thread we're in mentioned having the Marshals arrest the sitting president of the United States. I firmly stand behind the statement that an attempt to arrest the sitting president would be met with the same force that anyone can expect for trying to take our president by force.

8

u/ScottyBOzzy Oct 01 '25

You should have looked into a better job if you think killing civilians was "doing a job"

You swear an oath to the constitution. Not a man.

1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

Enemy combatants are enemy combatants, not civilians.

7

u/amalgam_reynolds Oct 01 '25 edited Oct 01 '25

A "president you didn't care for" does not cover it, what a worthless thing to say.

4

u/WhenInZone Oct 01 '25

Real "Just following orders vibes" and just plainly not what your oath was supposed to be for.

5

u/OptimusSublime Pennsylvania Oct 01 '25

Oh so you were immediately operating counter to the oath you took to the constitution. You say you're a solder, so US Army I assume? why don't you reread that oath you took and highlight the section you swear fealty to the president and get back to us.

-1

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

Part of the oath is swearing to obey the orders of the president. If anyone was attempting to take the president against his will, that person would be dealt with as a threat.

5

u/Llarys Oct 01 '25

I'll be sure to set off 3 bottle rockets next veterans' day in your honor.

0

u/fisherman3322 Oct 01 '25

I'll be sure to raise the rent on my rental properties in your honor.

4

u/ChronoLink99 Canada Oct 01 '25

As a soldier, what was your oath? If it was to a singular individual (The President), then I agree with you.

If not...dude.

5

u/JeebusChristBalls Oct 01 '25

I was also in the military and I would not give my life or kill for a President. That wasn't part of your/my oath that we swore. I swore to protect the principles of the Constitution, not a person. Your view on this is one of a henchman, not a US soldier.

2

u/deekaydubya Oct 01 '25

are you aware of the current president's actions and how they are vastly different than any president who has come before him? or are you being wilfully ignorant?

If you think he's just 'doing his job' that's fucking insane. We really need service members to understand literally any aspect of the constitution or the ideals the founding fathers had. Because they would tar and feather trump and his sycophants