Republican senator and presidential maybe-hopeful Lindsey Graham stopped by the "politics and pies" forum in Concord, New Hampshire, today, where he announced that if he is elected president in 2016, his first act will be to deploy the military in Washington to force Congress to reverse cuts to the defense and intelligence budgets. 
 
 Yes, you heard that right. Here are Graham's exact words: 
 
 And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts. 
 
 Graham would use the military to force members of Congress to not just vote on the bill — but to pass it. Graham didn't say "until I get an up-or-down vote on restoring defense cuts." He said "until we restore these defense cuts." 
 
 In other words, Graham is proposing that his first act as president would be to use the military to force the legislative branch to pass his agenda. 
 
 Is Senator Graham announcing his plans for a self-coup? 
 
 If taken literally, Graham is basically announcing his plan to stage a coup: he is saying that if he gains control of the executive branch, he will use his authority as commander in chief to overcome the separation of powers and force the legislative branch to do his bidding, instead of allowing it to act as an independent branch of the government. 
 
 Political scientists often refer to that type of action as a "self-coup," a situation in which a legitimate leader uses the military or other armed force to unlawfully seize more power than is permitted under the constitution of the country in question. Usually that's a permanent seizure of power and a total shutdown of the legislature, so what Graham is proposing is a relatively mild version. But as silver linings go, "it's a coup, but only a small one" isn't very comforting. 
 
 Although I suppose that's one way to deal with congressional deadlock. 
 
 There is no universe in which this is remotely legal behavior 
 
 Maybe Graham was just joking (he sounded serious) or just speaking figuratively to make a point about his determination to restore cut military funding (okay, but weird way to do it). 
 
 If he was being remotely serious, though, this proposal is dramatically different from anything that is actually legal — such as, say, the Senate leadership using the Capitol police or sergeant-at-arms to ensure that the Senate has a quorum. 
 
 That happened in 1988, when Democratic leadership had the Capitol police carry Republican Senator Bob Packwood feet-first into the Senate chamber to ensure a quorum. Harry Reid threatened to use similar methods more recently when he was Senate majority leader. 
 
 But what the Senate did in 1988 was compel senators' presence, not compel them to vote a certain way. It was permitted by the Senate rules, which say that "a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators" to reach a quorum. And it was the Senate policing itself, and thus did not violate the separation of powers. 
 
 What Lindsey Graham is proposing is to physically force members of Congress to vote how he commands. His plan violates constitutional separation of powers in just about the most extreme way imaginable, by forcing the executive branch's will on the legislature. And it is a pretty safe bet that Senate rules do not grant the president authority to have the 101st Airborne Division occupy the Capitol until Congress votes the way he wants. 
 
 Graham's proposal is so astonishing that it's pretty much impossible to believe that's what he really meant. He is a mainstream politician and an attorney who served as an Air Force JAG. Surely — surely — he is not actually proposing such an unconstitutional action. 
 
 .... Right? 
 
 Update: Graham's spokesperson has clarified to Bloomberg that when Graham said "I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to," that statement was "not to be taken literally." Glad that's been cleared up. 
 
 Watch: President Obama explain the polarizing nature of modern politics ||||| During his remarks before the Concord City Republican Committee last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that robust military spending is absolutely necessary to defeat ISIS forces abroad, and that, as president, he would use the military itself to force Congress to reverse budgetary cuts to defense and intel. 
 
 In brief audio obtained by BenSwann.com, Sen. Graham purportedly suggests he would use the military to restrict the movement of Congress until they complied: 
 
 …[A]nd here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We’re not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We’re not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts. 
 
 Seeing the high possibility that this could be Graham’s special brand of humor, we’ve reached out to his office and will update if and when we hear back. 
 
 Asked for comment or clarification, Graham responded to the right-leaning website with this boilerplate: “Due to the large volume of mail I receive, I regret that I am only able to respond personally to inquiries from South Carolinians. “ 
 
 [UPDATE — 3:42 p.m. ET: As his office clarifies, Graham was employing over-the-top humor to win over his audience.] 
 
 — — 
 
 Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com ||||| Senate GOP divided on sequester plan 
 
 By Erik Wasson - 
 
 Two days before $85 billion in automatic spending cuts hit the government, Senate Republicans are divided over a bill backed by their leadership that would replace the sequester. 
 
 The measure would require that $85 billion in spending be cut, but give President Obama more flexibility in manage the spending reductions than given by the sequester, which requires across-the-board cuts to nearly every part of every agency. 
 
 But some Republicans fear it would help the White House use the cuts as a political weapon, while defense hawks worry the Pentagon would not escape harm. 
 
 Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the plan doesn't address the damage that the sequester cuts would inflict on the military. 
 
 “I don’t care how flexible you want to be, the top-line numbers don’t add up to me on defense. That’s my problem," Graham said after a contentious GOP meeting where the plan was discussed. 
 
 Coming up with a favored approach is important as both sides try to win public support over how they are handling the sequester. 
 
 The Senate is expected to vote this week on rival legislative measures backed by Democrats and Republicans. While both bills are expected to fail, they could help give each party political cover. 
 
 Leaders on both sides will be looking at the vote count carefully, raising the stakes for Republicans to rally their members around one alternative. 
 
 So far, Senate Democrats look like the more unified side. 
 
 Most if not all Democrats are expected to support their conference’s $110 billion sequester replacement bill that would phase in a new minimum tax on those making more than $1 million a year, close corporate tax loopholes, end direct farm payments and delay defense cuts. 
 
 Such unity isn’t evident around the likely GOP alternative offered by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and supported by GOP leaders. The bill, which would give Obama more leeway in carrying out sequestration, was discussed Tuesday in the Senate Republican conference meeting. 
 
 In general, Republicans more comfortable with defense cuts supported this effort, while hawks like McCain and Graham were skeptical. 
 
 Opponents complain the plan would cede Congress's power of the purse to the president. Others say it does nothing to address the sequester’s damaging cuts to defense and national security. 
 
 "I've never seen so much passion about something that is not going to pass," Corker said Tuesday after the party’s weekly lunch. 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) acknowledged Tuesday that the party might have to offer more than one sequester alternative amendment on the Senate floor, if Democrats consent to multiple votes. 
 
 "Speaking for myself, I would be happy to give the president more flexibility and rely on the agency heads to portion the spending reductions in different ways," McConnell said. "There are some members of our conference who are suspicious that the administration would take advantage of such flexibility to punish their political enemies." 
 
 "We'll see how many votes we'll have. That's up for discussion," McConnell said. 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he would only allow one GOP bill. He has set the Senate up for Thursday votes. 
 
 The plan from Toomey and Corker would give the Obama administration more power to choose which federal programs and activities will be slashed to meet the $85 billion target. 
 
 The flexibility would apply equally to domestic and defense spending, Corker said, in contrast to an earlier proposal floated by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would have just given flexibility over Pentagon cuts. 
 
 Graham said that he would support a deficit grand bargain that raises $600 billion in revenues in exchange for massive entitlement reform. Such a bargain would presumably restore all nine years of defense cuts on the horizon. 
 
 The GOP conference is also weighing a proposal from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to replace the sequester cuts with a reduction in the overall federal workforce through attrition. McCain and Graham support the Ayotte approach. 
 
 Toomey said his proposal preserves the magnitude of the sequester cuts because the nation's budget situation demands it. 
 
 He said “given the disastrous fiscal situation we are in, we’ve got to support these cuts.” 
 
 The Pennsylvania senator said that the proposal could be redesigned to include a provision giving Congress a final vote to disapprove a presidential sequester plan. 
 
 He argued that after Oct. 1, the remaining eight years of automatic spending cuts are accomplished through lower budget caps, not the seizing of funds known as sequestration, so congressional power isn't ceded for long. 
 
 Corker concurred, arguing the plan "is the best solution for the next seven months. After that it moves to the appropriations process." 
 
 Once the sequester takes effect, supporters of the idea said, the flexibility bill could gain traction and could be difficult for Obama to reject. 
 
 Democrats showed no signs of supporting any of the GOP ideas. 
 
 Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, blasted the GOP approach as passing the buck to the White House. 
 
 “I think it’s a mistake in general to give the power of the purse to the president and say, ‘Here’s a pot of money; spend it as you wish,' ” Levin said. “That kind of, what’s called ‘flexibility,’ is really an abdication of what the responsibilities of the Congress are.” 
 
 Corker said that at this stage, the GOP proposal and a separate Democratic sequester replacement bill that raises taxes will fail in Senate votes this week. 
 
 “I can’t imagine either bill is going to pass,” he said. “That’s why I’m booking a flight to head out of town Thursday night.” 
 
 This story was posted on Feb. 26 at 4:46 p.m. and has been updated.
– Lindsey Graham is still talking. His latest headline-worthy quote: If he becomes our next president, the very first thing he will do is deploy the military. Against ... Congress. "I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this," he said yesterday at New Hampshire's "politics and pies" forum, referring to the budget. "I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts." As Vox notes, the quote implies Graham would use the military to force Congress to actually pass a bill, not simply to vote on one, since his stated goal is to "restore" the cuts. Sounds like a "coup" if taken literally, writes Amanda Taub. And though Graham did, indeed, use the word "literally," his office later clarified to Mediaite that the senator "was employing over-the-top humor to win over his audience."