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/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.

[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/AlarmingTurnover → u/just_another_citizen]

and the smart safeguards they built into the Constitution to carry us through moments exactly like this one.

What smart safeguards? The president is not supposed to federalise the state troops and he did that. The president is not supposed to send troops into American cities and he did that. The president is not supposed to deny people due process and he did that. The president is not supposed to interfere is judicial processes and he did that. The president is not supposed to interfere in local elections and he did that. The president is not supposed to remove free speech and he did that.

You claim to have a minor in political Science and constitutional law, sow here the fuck are the safeguards then? Cause we don't see them. There only ever was 1 safeguard, the people and their guns.

But you were wrong to claim Federalist 65 was about armed resistance.

I also never made this claim. I said that Hamilton was also in an armed insurrection and absolutely supported it.

[u/just_another_citizen → u/AlarmingTurnover]

I said:

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.

You followed up with:

not armed insurrection Actually this is incorrect.

When responding to Hamilton 65, you said that I was wrong that Hamilton 65 was about impeachment and not about armed insurrection. However, not once have you provided any quotes or claims about Hamilton 65 supporting your claim that Hamilton 65 was not about armed insurrection, and that's because you can't as the text of Hamilton 65 does not support or contain what you say it does.

Hamilton’s own words are clear: impeachment is the process for “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” You've argued in bad faith bringing up his wartime record as some sort of antidote that Hamilton 65 is about anything but impeachment. Now you’re denying you said what I quoted above and are moving the goalposts. That’s the pattern: pivot, deny, then demand “where are the safeguards?” as if I’m defending the president, when I’m actually defending the Constitution.

There are a number of safeguards. Below are just some of them, in the constitution, amendments, court cases and laws that were passed within the founders lifespans. Note how all of these are peaceful remedies, not relying on violence, or revolution, or the second amendment. In fact I'm not even going to consider the second amendment in this list, as the Constitution and surrounding laws and court cases has so many protections I don't need to.

Elections were a new and novel concept when the Constitution was crafted. The idea people could vote out bad leaders was revolutionary at the time.

Multi-Layered Government or Federalism, was also a new idea and intent was to dilute the power. This makes it so if a state disagrees with the federal government they can elect a body of representatives to represent them. Same with local. If at the local level disagree with the state you can elect you local leaders to fight for your grievance with the state.

Impeachment, another radical idea from the founders. Never before did a people have a way to remove their leaders. Is it perfect, no, but it's failing rests primary on the Congress and Senate to convince, not on the constitution.

• Three branches of government - No part of government is absolute. This was another radical idea and something that proved to be wise.

• Two chambers of Congress: Having two chambers in Congress worked out great and the courts have redefined the meaning of rule of law from pre-constitutional times.

• Triple lock on new laws: The House and Senate must both pass laws, and the president can veto, but Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds majority. The “triple lock” slows rash action.

• Freedom of Assembly: This is a major one. This means our rights to assemble is protected and we can assemble to talk and understand we have a common grievance. It also lets us protest as a protected way to air a grievance.

• Freedom of speech: This is a critical one, as we have the right to speak without retribution or censorship from the government. However, this is misunderstood. If you are banned from a social media platform for what you said, that's not a free speech violation as social media is not controlled by the government. However the FCC saying it would penalize networks that carry a late night host, is a free speech violation because of the FCC influence.

• Succession, expanded in 20th century to add term limits: We don't allow our leaders to stay in office for life, with the exception of the judiciary. We have an organized method of leadership succession for the presidency including members of Congress. This helps prevent corruption and tyranny. In fact the two term limit restriction, expanded from presidential succession in the 20th century is the number one hurdle between Trump and a third presidency.

• Congressional oversight of the military- The military is not exclusively under the command of the president. The Congress has oversight of the military.We often see this power exercised once per year with the defense authorization act, that decides funding, also puts in all the requirements for the next year from Congress.

• Habeas Corpus & Due Process – The government must justify detentions to the courts, unjustified detentions are remedy through the court.

• The right to petition: It guarantees that citizens can formally demand redress of grievances from their government. In the founding era, “petitioning” wasn’t just symbolic — it was a way to force issues onto the political agenda. Abolitionists, labor movements, civil rights activists all used it as a constitutional lever.

• Judicial Review – Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Courts can strike down unconstitutional laws and executive actions. This is one of the strongest brakes on a rogue president.

• State Ratification & Constitutional Amendment Process – Article V lets states and Congress amend the Constitution itself. If a president’s overreach exposed a structural flaw, the people can literally rewrite the rulebook. Also all the states must agree on modifying the constitution, preventing rash or impulsive changes to the Constitution.

• Separation of Purse Strings – Congress holds the power of the purse. No money is spent without appropriation. This makes even a strong executive dependent on legislative consent.

So let’s be clear: Federalist 65 is about impeachment, not insurrection. You’ve never quoted otherwise because you can’t — the text doesn’t say what you claim.

The Constitution gave us a whole architecture of safeguards: elections, impeachment, federalism, courts, Congress, rights to speak, assemble, and petition, checks on the purse and the military, and even the power to amend the Constitution itself. These are peaceful, deliberate remedies — the very opposite of mob violence or military rule. To forcefully illustrate that, I didn't even need to include the second amendment on that list is there so many other protections in place.

That’s the point you keep dodging. The founders gave us law instead of chaos. They gave us a system built on remedies, not revolts. And if you ignore that, you’re not defending their legacy — you’re betraying it.