martial law

Discussion, organization, flexing of power. We outnumber them severely. Such a thing would unite the majority of the populace against the usurper. A lot would rest on whether or not the army went along with things.

If you don't own a rifle and a survivial backpack, buy one. Learn. It can't really hurt, and it could help in the face of governmental tyranny.

Cycloptichorn

The system itself would defeat any attempt at usurpation. Our system is filled with "fail-safe" mechanisms that prevent any person, party or group from asserting too much power. The system maintains a strong opposition party at all times, at every level of government and in at least two of the three branches. Mere declaration by a leader seeking absolute power isn't nearly enough to crush all of the forces that by nature would resist losing their own powers.

Several have commented upon the role that the military would take in the event that some future political leader tried to dump the Constitution. OUr milltary has strong traditions of staying out of politics, but every one of them is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the President nor the Party in power. The U.S. military, far from being any threat to our liberty is one of our strongest defenses against any coupe.

The nation has developed a culture of individual indepencance, and expectation that Civil Rights are the norm. We jealously guard those Rights, and any suggestion that they be abandoned would leave the would-be tyrant alone and without enough support to effectuate his coupe. People would laugh the fool out of Washington.

Even small democratic countries with long traditions of individual liberty and independance are difficult to subvert and rebuild as dictatorships. The United States is a very big place, and its political structure is broken into fifty States, countless counties, cities, and villages. All of those pieces of government would have to be brought to heel against their strong resistance. Almost certainly impossible without far greater forces than are available to any government anywhere in the world. Americans will not be dictated to, by anyone. They will find ways to sabotage and derail any attempt to force them into policies that they don't accept.

Most people understand that some Civil Rights might have to be temporarily abridged during times of crisis, but would never stand for real and irrevocable loss of Rights. In our history no crisis has ever been so threatening that national elections were postponed. During the Civil War the Democratic Party also feared and predicted that Lincoln would cancel elections ... didn't happen then and not going to happen now.

Our system of representational government is far more at risk from those who prefer a system of entitlements, and government acting as our personal nanny. It is impossible to make life risk free, or to insure that everyone equally benefits from the system. The demands that every public figure be a saint and never fall into error is irrational, but it wounds us all. Sometimes it seems that we Americans have a guilt complex. Anything that the public finds distasteful, or counter to their personal opinion is wrong and the government should never allow it to happen. We tend to be so fixed upon criticising our own leaders that we forgive and forget the sins of those who would love to see the United States torn assunder. We need to remain critical and defensive of threats to our Constitutiona and liberties, but still be able to retain our faith in the system itself, the People at large, and the essential sincerity of the elected leadership.

olddog wrote:



We had a revolution in 1706 ?

Yeah, there was a resolution to have a revolution every seventy years 'til we got it right, and we got lucky the second time . . .

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was about to dust off the musket.

Hey, Setanta....Didn't you used to be part of the old NYTimes site? Seems like I remember your name but I don't recall if I liked you or not.....And forgive the date gaffe....I was never very good at math...

Thanks Asherman, both for the thoughtful post and for saving me the trouble of digging out that crusty picture of the guy wearing the tin foil hat. It must be a slow day in Washington when folks have to imagine additional things about George to worry about.

White house aids have quoted Bush as saying the constitution is "just a damn piece of paper". People can articulate page upon page of denial but what kind of man takes an oath as president to defend the constitution and then later calls it a "damn piece of paper".

If I would have told you ten years ago that a president in the White house would call the constitution a damn piece of paper what would you tell me?

But thats o.k. I am getting used to my fellow Americans sitting back and watching the government do things in this country that have never happened before, That only happens in other countries.

As jello Biafra said "This could be anywhere". If we are not careful America can become like anywhere else. Where will we be in ten more years?

It wasn't long ago the Bushes were doing business with Saddam hussein and the taliban were in Texas being shown a good time.

Which constitution are you reading? (Articles, not Amendments)

God, you're hopeless.

Please also note that they can't fix the election. It's up to the Electoral College. They don't even have to vote for one of the nominees that we've even heard of. It's political suicide to not, but thats beside the point.

I pray you people have lives outside of this.

This one.


I'll make you a little wager, Armageddon. If you find a clause in the constitution that mandates the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as election day, then I'll send you a certified check for $5,000.00. On the other hand, if you are unable to find such a clause, I get to ride you like a pony for one full day.

Or you could just apologize to me once you find out you're wrong. Either way, it's your call.

Actually, it says in Article 3, section 1:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. "

The underlined portion was added by the XII Amendment.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution doesn't even mandate that the electors be chosen by popular ballot. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct ...". Indeed, in some of our early elections electors from some states were chosen by the State Legislature. However, today all of the states have adopted by (law or State Constitution) the practice of choosing electors in popular elections.

While the exact dates for national elections is not specific within the four corners of the Constitution, those dates are fixed in law and hoary tradition. It really is a stretch to imagine that anyone would try to cancel or delay a national election, it would be foolishness of the first order and political suicide. Not going to happen, find something else to worry over.

That's actually the second Article. I'll assume you copied that from Law Cornell.

Just guessing your implications, Joe, that would be illegal.

Jeez, Asherman, I'm not worried. I'm an old dog and I'd kind of like to live long enough to see someone try it (like Senor Marcos in the Philippines who pulled it off in spite of their constitution being almost a carbon copy of ours). I applaud your optimism and wouldn't think of pointing out the historical events where people went along with their leaders in the belief that everything being done was good for them. I hate people who look back on history for their dire predictions. Okay, I'm being sarcastic, but you're right - if a President tried to stop an election everybody would be angry, maybe even take to the streets with their automatic weapons and handguns and pitchforks or whatever. That's why there haven't been dictators and despots throughout history who took power away from the people and vested it in themselves. Okay, so maybe there have been a few. Maybe even more than a few. But with our country in grave danger from terrorist attacks (although I don't worry about that, either, although I figure no matter how many phone calls you listen to or how many arrests you make a person who is willing to strap a load of TNT around hisorher waist can do at least a modicum of damage.) But the good news is nothing is going to happen to me! l. I've decided to change my stance and agree that a President ought to be able to do any damn thing he likes, Constitution or no Constitution, electors or no electors. And you're right - if the people and congress and the courts and everybody screamed loud enough surely the President would back down, whoever he may be. Or maybe not. Political suicide? Since when does that matter if a President is a lame duck? Frankly, I'm getting bored with this discussion because I am one-hundred percent convinced that under the right circumstances this sort of thing COULD definitely be accomplished, here, there, or anywhere. I am also bored with this thread because clearly nobody is willing to admit that a coup d'etat is possible - I said possible, not probable - in our country just like it is in every other country in the world. Peace, out.

Okay, okay... I'll go the find the picture. :wink:

Still waiting to see Joe riding Armageddon like a pony. A few words of advice, Amageddon; if you're going to challenge Joe, you'd better attack his opinions. If you manage to disprove his facts, it'll be the first time I've seen it happen. :wink:
(Btw, you probably share a LOT more common ground with him opinionwise than I do.)

What the hell does that mean?

No, seriously, what the hell does that mean?

I have no idea what kind of "implications" you're talking about. My only comments in this thread have been directed toward your erroneous assertion that the constitution mandates the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November as the day for federal elections.

Look, Armageddon, just cut the crap: are you going to let me ride you like a pony or are you going to apologize? I need to know because I loaned my riding crop to someone and I'll need to get it back before I can properly ride you like a pony.

Good observation, OB. I seldom agree with his opinions, but. . . .

So far theirs been no need for martial law because were like sheep. As long as we have all our vices and creature comforts it looks like Bush can do whatever he wants. There's been many things Bush has done that have been proven beyond a doubt that would warrant action from responsible conscientious free people. It's just plain Apathy and lack of concern. We forgot whats important, Were spoiled. We don't care what happens as long as it doesn't effect our looks or our bank account.

Most Americans either don't care, Don't know, Don't believe it or feel powerless to do anything about it.

If Bush wanted to suspend elections or fix yet another election He or the people in power would do what they always do and we would swallow it because were already defeated. Martial law was not required, we handed it over. it was like taking candy from a baby.

Yes, I think the democrats would have handled things differently but only almost any party or person on the planet would have handel it different. The bush people are somthing America has never seen. People would like to pretend they understand the dynamics but they don't.