There's the flaw. Why must the "fool in the White House" yield to the next "fool"? Because some piece of parchment says so? The Romans had a piece of parchment too!
Our government is not immune to the forces that have shaped history. Some day we may get a president who refuses to yield the office (or accept a "tampered-with" election return. Alea iacta est...). The Congress and Supreme Court will have the law on their side, true, but the Commander In Chief will have the army on his. Who's going to throw him out? Now, the army swears an oath to the Constitution, not to the Commander in Chief, but no one has the power to hold them to that oath. In such a situation it will be up the the officers of the army (and the soldiers who follow them) to determine for themselves where their loyalties lie. Soldiers do not die for ideas, they die for men — men with charisma.
As citizens of a representative republic, we are no more safe from the possibility of an autocratic seizure of power than were the Romans of 44 BC. Ultimately, in every country, the Army decides who the Leader is.
Not in this one, and I'm perfectly serious about that. If it did Clinton would never have seen the inside of the White House except on a tour. No U.S. president - not Eisenhower, not Grant, not Washington himself - not one ever held office at the behest of the army. To pretend otherwise is to attempt to twist fact to fit theory.