To just jump straight into Godwinizing, Hitler’s use of part of the Weimar Republic’s constitutional emergency powers to create a dictatorship.
I may not be a CT that sees martial law around every government action, but misusing emergency powers here to suspend civil liberties and then extending the emergency outside any reasonable justification.
A president ignoring Posse Commitatus limits, and the Congress which sets those limits, with a reasonable chunk of the military following the unlawful orders. Especially if he’s using them in ways that seem to undermine constitutionally protected civil liberties.
Was it, though? Calling it a war against a foreign army implies that the U.S. became sovereign and the British soldiers became invaders as soon as the Declaration of Independence was signed. I suppose that’s arguable. But even after that moment, a lot of people who had lived their whole lives on American soil regarded themselves as British citizens (second class, maybe, but still).
I think it’s more appropriate to label the American Revolutionary War as a civil war. The fact that it resulted in a separate nation makes it a successful revolution.
Allies always help the side they think will give them the biggest advantages in the future. The French helped the U.S. in the Revolutionary War, Germany helped France during their revolution, and the U.S. is helping Syria in its current fight.
If there was (for some reason) a large enough internal skirmish that the U.S. not only had to call in their military, but the military of their allies, do you imagine for a moment that not one would answer the call for aid?
I think this is the kind of answer that directly answers the OP, and I think the strongest causes of revolt.
The other things - complaints against other races, creeds, etc - usually don’t. They can, certainly, but they usually don’t get a lot of traction among the general populace. They become undercurrents for change along more traditional political routes, like votes, or super PACs, or lobbyists.
Ha. I beat them at their own game. I don’t own a gun which means they can’t confiscate a gun from me. So no government can ever subject me to tyrannical rule.
Are there constitutional emergency powers here in the US to create a dictatorship?
Is this just a law though? Can’t Congress repeal the law, get the President to sign, and therefore no more Posse Comitatus? How would the orders be unlawful?
Motive, one of the prerequisties for an insurgency froom FM 3-24 has this to say about grievances which can lead to an insurgency while discussing motive.
IN the realm of a possible insurgency that could start with good popular support.
Some of the list of grievances aren’t far off a campaign on both sides of our Presidential election this cycle. Trump’s plays to the some of the economic grievances even if not addressing most of them head on. Sanders made clearly addressed some of them in his campaign… They are blaming different people and their methods of addressing them are different. That’s mid 40s percent of each parties, with another chunk of Democrats well suited to be passive supporters under some of the issues. Something like economic inequality already plays well among a wider swath of Democrats making them potential passive supporters.
We’re short a charismatic leader who can unify the two party factions with similar grievances, point them at the same internal target (say “the plutocrats”) and convince them that the political process was not enough to address the situation . I don’t think we’re there, but economic inequality is the kind of broad issue that stands a chance.
I thought the question was what would cause a revolt here in the US? Wasn’t the French Revolution a revolt against a monarchy? How would analogies apply here in the US?
Plus, a scenario such as that in Seven Days In May, where a military coup takes control of the government.
Or if our government actually started rounding up anyone into internment camps, and did not seem to be responding to legal challenges.
I would also take arms against a government that became ISIS-like, or like Bokol Harem, or the Lord’s Resistance Army. Now, the chance of that happening in this country is virtually zero, but you did ask.
Weimar Republic’s weren’t exactly set up with “create a dictatorship” in mind either. We’ve got more controls in case law but there is precedent for marital law. I’d have to see actual abuse of the current limits/precedents with no reasonable chance of a fix anytime soon.
I did specify ignoring Congress. It’s not like there’s not precedent for President’s of both parties pushing limits of executive power in other issues. The War Powers Act gets trampled regularly.
Well, I would definitely revolt if I HAD to get married again
True, but I don’t think anyone is going to revolt because we are bombing OTHER countries. TBH, I don’t know what the military would do if the President ordered NORTHCOM to deploy to the streets and police the cities.
The notion of an armed populace being a deterrent against a tyrannical government is long, long gone.
It all comes down to the military and whose side they are on.
If the military is on the side of the current government the BEST you can hope for is what Syria has right now. Not pretty. Thing is more often than not the military is on the side of the current government.
It is complete BS that we need gun ownership to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. It won’t help.
I submit it doesn’t matter what prompts the hoi polloi to rise up because these days they will lose unless the military sides with them.
That said I think it is worth noting that all gun owners are not of a single mind and will not rise up at the same time to a given situation. That leads us to reason it is even less likely for some group to defend themselves from the predations of an evil government.
Most are like the frog in a pot of cold water that heats up. By the time the frog realizes it is being cooked it is too late to jump out and save itself. No amount of guns and ammo in their basement will help them.
I don’t think the founding fathers really knew if their “great experiment” would work or not. No matter how carefully they laid out the protections against tyranny, the simple fact remains these principles had never been tried before. As a safeguard to Federal power, the military was divided up among the States, to be called up when the Federal government needed them. There’s a long history in England of the Barons’ efforts to control the power of the English King by restricting the King’s standing army. The 2nd Amendment keeps this safeguard in place.
It’s easy to say here two centuries later that this safeguard was unnecessary, in a Republic form of government a standing army is no threat to personal liberties and freedoms. The founding fathers could only hope this was true.
Today, it’s a non-issue IMEIO. During the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge stand-off I looked up the Oregon Militia, turns out they are moribund, “temporarily” disbanded until more tax funds came available. That ain’t never going to happen …
Ah … excuse me … I’m referring to the whole “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment … the citizen-soldier of the Delaware State Militia was guarantied the right to keep his gun … thus upon call-up, he had his gun and was well practiced with it.
With the exhaustive discussions above about the individual right, we also need to address the State right to operate their own militia, as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.
Okay, OKAY, I’ll do it. I don’t really WANT to, and I’m sure it’s going to be a HUGE PITA, but if nobody’s going to step up and be the grownup, it looks like I’m not being given a choice.
I’m going to have to get paid, btw. I think a $2500 user fee per consultation, and a stipend of $100k per year (I have to eat, even during slow years).
