Question by Robert S: At what point could a sitting President be considered a threat to national security?
Clearly, the individual would have been voted into office by the people. At least that is how it is supposed to work, no matter the levels of media bias and blind support the candidate may have had at the time. But, who would be held responsible for making a claim that the elected Presidents policies, perspectives, connections, lack of experience, lack of broad focus on national issues, or just plain direction could be considered a threat to our national security?
What a broad spectrum of damaging ramifications would result. Yet, who holds that responsibility to say, things are just plain wrong?
Best answer:
Answer by Caribou “QUIT” Barbie™
You can.
March on Washington D.C. and do it yourself and see what happens.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Cinner
January 2, 2011 at 12:15 am
That is an excellent question. I would think that it would be Congress who would say it publicly. Maybe someone in Homeland security would see it first and contact them. I don’t know. It would have to be a major problem to get anyone to act. And with Pelosi as speaker and Obama in the White House it would have to be an overt hostile action to get that clown to act.
lordkelvin
January 2, 2011 at 12:42 am
Now would be a good time..
wyldfyr
January 2, 2011 at 1:34 am
When he takes us into a war based on claims of WMD and purchases yellow cake uranium that he knows is a blatant lie.
wampum15
January 2, 2011 at 1:58 am
Palin can see Russia from the Wasilla Baptist Church rooftop so she’s eminently qualified to protect us in case Putin decides to ambush on his snowmobile. Wow – we could have elected her!
POPO
January 2, 2011 at 2:07 am
The media isn’t the only way to find out about someone.
Voting rights or an attempt to undermine same are the way to voice and determine the greatest threat to democracy
A. E. Moreira
January 2, 2011 at 2:12 am
For a sitting POTUS to be considered a threat to national security, said POTUS would actually have to overtly fund countries that sponsor terrorist.
As for who would be held responsible, it would be the person who makes it to then back it up.