Thanks for the citation. There's no language in that law that restricts the President's ability to directly appoint members to the military who are loyal to him. All it does is establishes a commission, chosen by the President, that can appoint members to the military. But it does not restrict the President from doing so. In fact the President is free to fire them all and let it languish.
Can you cite any other law or precedent that would restrict him from doing so?
The President is not capable of appointing members to the military unilaterally. Congress has sole power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy." The President's role in accessions under title 10 exists only because Congress put it there.
There are 2 million people in the military. All the president would need to do is find a handful of existing personnel and organize them. He doesn't need to "raise" or "provide" anyone.
This is exactly how Trump organized the legislative coup within the White House. He went through the ranks of the DOJ to find someone who would draft a letter to send to all the states implying that fraud had been found (a lie) and DOJ was investigating (also a lie). No one at the DOJ would do this except for Jeffry Clark, a low ranking official who was promised the role of AG if he were to carry out Trump's scheme.
Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about any civil service act. He never has, and never will.
He will do as he pleases, and a GOP led congress will simply let him, laws and precedent be damned (and the Supreme Court will comply). A DEM led congress will throw up their hands in uproar, and then refuse to actually do anything.
How is that not nothing? He continued to remain in Office until the end of his term and even attempted to prolong his stay. If those impeachments were worth more than the paper the Constitution is written on, that would never have happened.
Only the Senate can remove the president. The House can only introduce articles of impeachment and vote on whether or not they go through.
This, I believe, was originally set forth because the Senate was modeled as an “upper house” not subject to the whims of popular agitation (6 year terms vs 2 year terms. Appointment/selection by States vs direct election by district constituencies). The House, having more direct connections to the people is given the power to investigate and impeach a president, hopefully as a reflection of the public. The Senate, being composed of elder statesmen and slightly removed from the direct consequences of local constituents, is to be a check on potential rash impeachments.
So I’d dare say the impeachments were worth the paper the constitution was written on. The House impeached. The Senate tried, and acquitted him.
Parent comment specifically called out a "DEM led congress" refusing to do anything. An impeachment vote is the full extent of their power in getting rid of a president. And they did it twice in one term.
> that would never have happened.
What never would have happened? Some bizarre unknown chain-of-events which led to Trump staying in office? The occurrence which DEMs are somehow taking the heat for is the GOP outnumbering them and outvoting them in the senate to keep Trump in.
