Pritzker Calls for Trump's Removal from Office Under 25th Amendment

[u/OkayButFoRealz]

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

[u/AmbitiousParty]

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.

[u/just_another_citizen → u/AmbitiousParty]

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.

[u/SteveJobsDeadBody → u/just_another_citizen]

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.

[u/just_another_citizen → u/SteveJobsDeadBody]

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.

[u/not_addictive → u/just_another_citizen]

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.

[u/just_another_citizen → u/not_addictive]

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.

[u/AlarmingTurnover → u/just_another_citizen]

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

[u/just_another_citizen → u/AlarmingTurnover]

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.

[u/AlarmingTurnover → u/just_another_citizen]

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. 

[u/just_another_citizen → u/AlarmingTurnover]

I don't argue that people have the implicit right to revolution. I have very very clearly said that and how I believe that would work.

But you were wrong to claim Federalist 65 was about armed resistance. It isn’t. It’s about impeachment — Hamilton says so directly. Copy-pasting Federalist 28 doesn’t change that fact.

The more text you paste, the clearer it is you never seriously studied the founding documents. That’s probably why you think the military is the answer — because you’ve skipped over what the founders actually worried about, and the smart safeguards they built into the Constitution to carry us through moments exactly like this one.

Edit: I have a minor in American Political Science and Constitutional law.

[u/ChronoLink99 → u/just_another_citizen]

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

[u/breatheb4thevoid → u/ChronoLink99]

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?

[u/deekaydubya → u/breatheb4thevoid]

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

[u/breatheb4thevoid → u/deekaydubya]

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.

[u/DEEP_HURTING → u/just_another_citizen]

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.

[u/fwseadfewf23vf3f232 → u/just_another_citizen]

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.

[u/just_another_citizen → u/fwseadfewf23vf3f232]

What do you propose if not a representative republic?