While correct, the implication of the quote in the article that GP shares is that of, “who ELSE CAN incapacitate the president in event of overreach on the stat

While correct, the implication of the quote in the article that GP shares is that of, “who ELSE CAN incapacitate the president in event of overreach on the status quo?” There’s usually 2 implied answers to this - at least in American discourse (the people - with an extralegal right to revolution, and foreign states - as an act of war). However, the author actually introduces a party that usually isn’t discussed in the conversation - the IC. I was just bringing up the party of “The People” that is USUALLY assumed the responsibility in hypotheticals like these, and actually challenging the grounds of doing so