AHC: Coup by Congress

Baconheimer · Dec 19, 2014

How is it possible with a post-1950 POD to get a situation in which the US Congress has a coup against the US President?

I was thinking it would be possible if the President and Vice-President were quickly impeached, and the new President, from Congress, led the country into whatever Congress wanted to do the coup for.

EternalCynic · Dec 19, 2014

Would it even be considered a coup, given that this transfer of power occurred within the Constitution?

Orville_third · Dec 19, 2014

Easy. You'd just need enough members to rush the vote through.

Will Lucky · Dec 19, 2014

Nixon? In the event he resisted stepping down as the President?

Mike Stearns · Dec 19, 2014

EternalCynic said:
Would it even be considered a coup, given that this transfer of power occurred within the Constitution?

Will Lucky said:
Nixon? In the event he resisted stepping down as the President?

I could see Nixon as a possibility, and that he somehow takes Ford down with him, but I agree with Eternal Cynic. I don't know that that's a coup, as such. The next person in the line of succession after the VP is the Speaker of the House, who in the case of Nixon would have been Carl Albert.

usertron2020 · Dec 19, 2014

Agreed with all. The closest we've had is the Clinton Impeachment [1], which of course didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past a US Senate that would have required 13 Democratic defections, and in fact OTL not only had zero Democrats join with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE], but also had five Republican defections to Clinton!

1] I don't count the Johnson Impeachment, as A. Johnson was only months away from leaving office and the Impeachment was nothing more than an act of spite by the Radical Republicans.

IF the US Congress actually impeached and convicted a sitting President, it would have to happen under circumstances where:

a) The President still had a considerable amout of time left in office

b) The party in opposition had overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress (esp. the Senate; Lotsa Luck!)

c) The President is incredibly unpopular nationwide

d) The impeachment charges have to be more serious than the trumpery nature of previous attempts (Nixon level impeachment, IOW)

Remember this however: The then House Speaker Newt Gingrich speculated on TV the likelihood that Clinton would be Impeached and Removed, and then Gore would pardon Clinton, allowing the Congress to Impeach and Remove Gore. Thereby allowing Speaker Gingrich to assume the mantle of President of the United States!

The fact is these Gingrichian statements were used to help expose the true motives for the VRWC [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] regarding impeaching Clinton. The idea that the Republicans could remove Clinton, including getting Democratic support for it [2], never seemed to waver in GOP minds at the time.

2] Does the Dark Side of the Force have the Jedi Mind Trick?

Mike Stearns · Dec 19, 2014

The only other scenario that I can think of where this would be possible is one where evidence comes to light that the Bush White House planned 9/11. That and Nixon are the only ways this works IMHO.

usertron2020 · Dec 19, 2014

Mike Stearns said:
The only other scenario that I can think of where this would be possible is one where evidence comes to light that the Bush White House planned 9/11. That and Nixon are the only ways this works IMHO.

If you are going to dive into conspiracy theories you can impeach anybody.

MerryPrankster · Dec 19, 2014

Since the legislature has the power to legally remove the president, a legislative coup is rather tricky to pull off. After all, a coup implies illegality.

Maybe if they do impeach a president and he refuses to leave? They might have to find some coercive force (FBI, local troops) to get rid of him. But in that case, the president is the lawbreaker, not Congress.

Apollo 20 · Dec 20, 2014

Mike Stearns said:
The only other scenario that I can think of where this would be possible is one where evidence comes to light that the Bush White House planned 9/11. That and Nixon are the only ways this works IMHO.

Which doesn't make it a coup, as there is a legitimate basis for impeachment and removal. And in the case of Nixon or the ASB case of Bush planning 9/11, you'd have plenty of Republicans lined up to support the action.

What you need is a scenario where there is no legitimate basis for removal of both, yet it happens anyway as a means to elevate an opposition party Speaker to the Presidency. I find this bordering on the impossible, since there would be an inevitable political backlash, not to mention the likely impossibility of getting a Senate so far out of balance that a conviction is possible. That might be possible, by expelling minority Senators and voting before they could be replaced, but this takes you back to the 2/3 of the Senate problem involved in removing a President. In short, the Constitution is pretty well-designed to prevent such shenanigans. Impeachment in the House is easy as it only takes a simple majority. Conviction in the Senate is far more difficult.

General Mosh · Dec 20, 2014

Orville_third said:
Easy. You'd just need enough members to rush the vote through.

This. A populist party gaining a vast majority in Congress but still not controlling the Presidency could conceivably conjure some trumped up charges and remove the President and his VP, putting the Speaker in power. And it could be considered to meet the requirements of a "coup" (an illegal overthrowing of the government), because even though the actual removal was done through legal recourse, it's illegal to knowingly accuse someone with false charges, as far as I know.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Dec 20, 2014

Closest I can think is Bush in 2007 starts the surge, Democrats are pissed, so impeach Bush and Cheney, but the gap between OTL and this result is too big for me to try and outline.

Alon · Dec 20, 2014

Lord_Thrawn said:
Closest I can think is Bush in 2007 starts the surge, Democrats are pissed, so impeach Bush and Cheney, but the gap between OTL and this result is too big for me to try and outline.

Starting with the fact that removal requires a two-thirds Senate majority whereas Democrats had 51 Senators, counting Joe Lieberman...

asupackman · Dec 20, 2014

usertron2020 said:
Agreed with all. The closest we've had is the Clinton Impeachment [1], which of course didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting past a US Senate that would have required 13 Democratic defections, and in fact OTL not only had zero Democrats join with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE], but also had five Republican defections to Clinton!

1] I don't count the Johnson Impeachment, as A. Johnson was only months away from leaving office and the Impeachment was nothing more than an act of spite by the Radical Republicans.

IF the US Congress actually impeached and convicted a sitting President, it would have to happen under circumstances where:

a) The President still had a considerable amout of time left in office

b) The party in opposition had overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress (esp. the Senate; Lotsa Luck!)

c) The President is incredibly unpopular nationwide

d) The impeachment charges have to be more serious than the trumpery nature of previous attempts (Nixon level impeachment, IOW)

Remember this however: The then House Speaker Newt Gingrich speculated on TV the likelihood that Clinton would be Impeached and Removed, and then Gore would pardon Clinton, allowing the Congress to Impeach and Remove Gore. Thereby allowing Speaker Gingrich to assume the mantle of President of the United States!

The fact is these Gingrichian statements were used to help expose the true motives for the VRWC [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] regarding impeaching Clinton. The idea that the Republicans could remove Clinton, including getting Democratic support for it [2], never seemed to waver in GOP minds at the time.

2] Does the Dark Side of the Force have the Jedi Mind Trick?

On what grounds would they be impeaching Gore? I mean Clinton's articles of impeachment were a stretch but were at least legitimate. Had Clinton been removed from office the most President Gore could have done was pardon former President Clinton keeping him from being criminally prosecuted. People always forget (or are ignorant of the fact) that an impeachment conviction simply means you are removed from office, not that you are criminally prosecuted.

Star Eater · Dec 20, 2014

Mike Stearns said:
I could see Nixon as a possibility, and that he somehow takes Ford down with him, but I agree with Eternal Cynic. I don't know that that's a coup, as such. The next person in the line of succession after the VP is the Speaker of the House, who in the case of Nixon would have been Carl Albert.

Oh great, the President becomes humpty dumpty. I guess you could say that's eggsecutive power... *gets banned*

troosvelt_68 · Dec 20, 2014

During Watergate some Democrats in the House wanted to block confirmation of Ford as VP until Nixon resigned so Carl Albert would become POTUS

wcv215 · Dec 20, 2014

General Mosh said:
This. A populist party gaining a vast majority in Congress but still not controlling the Presidency could conceivably conjure some trumped up charges and remove the President and his VP, putting the Speaker in power. And it could be considered to meet the requirements of a "coup" (an illegal overthrowing of the government), because even though the actual removal was done through legal recourse, it's illegal to knowingly accuse someone with false charges, as far as I know.

A party that controls two-thirds of the Senate isn't going to NEED to impeach the president on false charges, they render him completely irrelevant.

LHB · Dec 20, 2014

So barring a massively popular party sweeping both Houses of Congress the only other possibility I can think of would be knowingly falsified charges used to drive the President out of office a la US House of Cards.

That way you get the illegality/illegitimacy aspect for it to be more of a coup and less of working through established constitutional processes. Of course that secret, whatever it is, is going to be kept pretty firmly under wraps because the moment it gets out a President was removed from office based on fabricated evidence being a Congresscritter is going to become very hazardous to a lot of people's health. It would be safe to assume that if any of the members of Congress who vote in favor and are in the dark find out later they'd have some very solid reasons to keep their mouths shut.

The only way it could work, really, is if a small cadre of people cooked up a fake scandal, forged evidence, and made it work with some relatively innocuous stuff the POTUS was already doing that could be spun to look sinister. It would be incredibly risky and only a truly ruthless, amoral individual that would make LBJ look like a teddy bear would even consider something like that I think.

xxmagex · Dec 20, 2014

Perhaps a different Congressional reaction to MacArthur's firing by Truman?

usertron2020 · Dec 20, 2014

Apollo 20 said:
Which doesn't make it a coup, as there is a legitimate basis for impeachment and removal. And in the case of Nixon or the ASB case of Bush planning 9/11, you'd have plenty of Republicans lined up to support the action.

What you need is a scenario where there is no legitimate basis for removal of both, yet it happens anyway as a means to elevate an opposition party Speaker to the Presidency. I find this bordering on the impossible, since there would be an inevitable political backlash, not to mention the likely impossibility of getting a Senate so far out of balance that a conviction is possible. That might be possible, by expelling minority Senators and voting before they could be replaced, but this takes you back to the 2/3 of the Senate problem involved in removing a President. In short, the Constitution is pretty well-designed to prevent such shenanigans. Impeachment in the House is easy as it only takes a simple majority. Conviction in the Senate is far more difficult.

I agree. Somewhere in the Federalist Papers you have the line that the need for a Senate Supermajority for Conviction was absolute, lest no US President could ever survive the displease of Congress. Unfortunately, it appears that apparently nobody bothered to tell the VRWC [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] members of the US House of Representatives this! Even during and after the disgusting March Rich pardon the VRWC [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] were talking up prosecuting Bill Clinton for the pardons, until constitutional lawyers, including a number of VRWC [SIZE=-4]tm[/SIZE] spelled out to them that presidential pardons were absolute, short of proof of bribery.

Marshal Mosh said:
This. A populist party gaining a vast majority in Congress but still not controlling the Presidency could conceivably conjure some trumped up charges and remove the President and his VP, putting the Speaker in power. And it could be considered to meet the requirements of a "coup" (an illegal overthrowing of the government), because even though the actual removal was done through legal recourse, it's illegal to knowingly accuse someone with false charges, as far as I know.

Andrew Jackson was impeached for the "crime" of abolishing the National Bank. But the very next Congress anulled the impeachment, which is why we don't count it anymore. Prediction: Next time the US House gets overwhelming control for the Dems, Clinton's impeachment goes bye-bye too.

asupackman said:
On what grounds would they be impeaching Gore? I mean Clinton's articles of impeachment were a stretch but were at least legitimate. Had Clinton been removed from office the most President Gore could have done was pardon former President Clinton keeping him from being criminally prosecuted. People always forget (or are ignorant of the fact) that an impeachment conviction simply means you are removed from office, not that you are criminally prosecuted.

Politics is about perception, not the law. House Impeachment, as well as Senate Trials, are political affairs, not courts of law. That's why the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presides over the trial, he does not sit in judgement over it. All 100 senators are empowered to interrupt him, or ask questions. So if the US House decided that Gore's pardoning of Clinton constituted a "High Crime and/or Misdemeanor" in the performance of his duties (killing the Clinton Wars, taking it off the front pages, so as to make it less of an issue during his future run for the presidency?), they can do so. They can also do so for the proverbial crime of square dancing in a roundhouse.

And in an age of hyper-gerrymandered House districts, they face no electoral responsibility for it. The only exceptions I can think of were Livingston and Barr, both outed as adulterers by Larry Flynt.

troosvelt_68 said:
During Watergate some Democrats in the House wanted to block confirmation of Ford as VP until Nixon resigned so Carl Albert would become POTUS

And to this day there are people convinced that because Nixon got to name his own replacement, and then got a prompt pardon, that there was a deal. I happen to be one of those people. At least it torpedoed any chance of Ford winning the White House in his own right.

wcv215 said:
A party that controls two-thirds of the Senate isn't going to NEED to impeach the president on false charges, they render him completely irrelevant.

OTOH, if the POTUS is looking at another 2-6 years in the White House, it might be a viable strategy if the opposing party enjoyed good electoral results in off-year elections, and even when the POTUS was initially elected. Especially if the party looking to impeach has been overrun by extremists. I remember quite a few town hall meeting with the typical Town Flake in the back row demanding of his Republican congressman: "When are you gunna IMPEACH that guy?" Followed by a timid lecture from said congressman about the nature of Senate trials and supermajorities (followed then by a chorus of hoots and catcalls

).

Unfortunately, THESE days, we now have a working majority within the US GOP House Caucus consisting of Town Flakes...