I’d say genocide is pretty close.
This is such a load of crap. :rolleyes:
I served in the U.S. military for over ten years as a Naval officer. Back in the 1992 election, I was not too pleased when President Clinton defeated the first President Bush. I suspect there were many personnel in the military who agreed with me. However, any military person who seriously espoused overturning the results of the election would have been regarded as a dangerous lunatic.
The military, for the most part, is composed of law-abiding people who are well aware of what is and is not lawful. U.S. military personnel swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” (not a particular president), and they take this oath seriously.
The Abu Grahib debacle was perpetrated by a small number of poorly trained reservists who never thought they would be caught. It’s a long stretch to go from overseas prisoner abuse to frank treason.
In any event, the U.S. Marines guarding the White House are not accustomed to receiving orders directly from the President. Any such orders to “defend him against all comers” would have to go through their chain-of-command. Such clearly unlawful orders would be ignored.
Robby, both Heinlein and Bujold among authors I like have scenes where it is referenced that a respected military-leader character gives training to new officers in “when you should refuse to obey an unlawful order.” Example is given of a major ordering a massacre in violation of the Laws of War. I suspect strongly that there is a real-life analog – as in the hypothetical president of this thread giving an order on Jan. 19 that the Army act to keep him in office after his term expires on Jan. 20. Would you happen to know whether that is indeed the case?
Care to back up that accusation with anything remotely resembling a cite, or are you just engaging in drive-by assholery?
By the way, for those folks who were not alive or were asleep during Nixon’s and Clinton’s presidency, impeachment is a term for formal accusation. Nothing more.
There is nothing TO enforce. Several people have been impeached, including the first President Johnson. It has nothing to do with remedy or reprisal or punishment.
I gotcha; Republicans are idiots. Thanks for showing us your calibre and character.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, SPOOFE.
Revtim said that he does NOT think that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, and there are probably just as many Democratic mind-slaves as there are Republican ones.
I’ll admit that my comparison to Abu Gharib was unfair, but still, if the situation was sufficiently messed up (ie, it really did look like the election was rigged in favor of Kerry), then it’s possible that a faction of the government could decide that it wasn’t going to accept the results of the election. As I said before, it is extremely unlikely that any significant number of people would support Bush to this extreme, but this is exactly the kind of crap that happens in Latin America all the time. Every few years, the party in power in some country loses an election, and instead of conceding defeat, they declare the election invalid. Usually, this results in a civil war. If the country is lucky, there will be a quick coup which causes the leader to flee the nation.
The people in the military take an oath to defend the constitution. They do not take any oath to any individual person. So, hypothetically speaking, if they do not oppose this illegal power grab, and if they support him they become oathbreakers and traitors.
As an aside, note that there is no substantial military contingent at the White House. (At things like White House dinners, young officers in their dress blues are brought in to escort the ladies to their seats, but that’s not quite the same thing.) The White House is protected by the Secret Service, as uniformed officers and plainclothes agents, and the Secret Service is a federal law enforcement agency now within the Department of Homeland Security, previously within the Treasury Department. It’s not very likely that they would participate in a coup. The President doesn’t even have troops around to whom he could give direct orders, and if he tried to order, say, the Secretary of Defense or the Marine Commandant to send in the tanks, their likely response would be WTF?! (Can you imagine Donald Rumsfeld getting a call like that in the middle of the night?)
The United States is not a banana republic. The only authority the President holds is temporarily entrusted to him through a lawful process and is limited by the Constitution, to which all military and civilian officials are sworn to be faithful. When a President’s term ends he becomes a private citizen. He can say whatever he wants, but nobody has to listen to him.
So, doesn’t the OP’s question boil down to: What are the rules for a coup d’etat?
And the answer is: There aren't any.I don’t really think there would be any danger at all of some sort of revolution or constitutional crisis. I think Congress the courts, the military and even the president’s own cabinet members would be so aghast at his even attempting such a thing, that the result would be a total abandonment of any support whatsoever for that president, and he would simply be removed…by force, if necessary.
After that, who knows. I imagine he’d be arrested and tried for something, or maybe sent to a hospital for mental evaluation.
He thinks that Republicans would support George Bush if he decided to try to declare himself dictator. Not only that, but he has vociferously defended this stance of his.
So what am I missing? Did he type something in white font that I happened to miss? Or is it just gonna be more “Bush is Hitler” crap and refusal to listen to any logic or reason in this?
In regard to the OP, the military of the United States would, by the Constitution and their military regulations, support their lawful president, call him “John Kerry” for the purposes of argument. The man who’s attempting the coup d’etat (call him George Bush for the purposes of argument). “Kerry” would choose between using force to remove “Bush” from office, or serving as President from a rented office. I suspect anyone in the armed forces who didn’t support the Constitution would be dishonorably discharged or subject to court-martial.
In the former case, “Bush” and whoever stayed with him would probably leave out the back door. If they didn’t, I suspect that they’d be physically dragged out. Three Marines ought to be able to subdue “Bush” and haul him out without injury.
In the latter, all publicly-paid officials currently in “Bush”'s service would be transferred to Kerry. “Bush” might then be left to the mob who break in through the now-unprotected White House windows. The consequences of 5,000,000 protestors invading the White House do not bear thinking about…
SPOOFE, he’s not saying that. He’s saying that Bush has rabid supporters within his party that would support him if he declared himself president-for-life or some such like that. He’s also saying that there are members of the Democratic party who would do the same thing for a Democratic president. There are people who are capable of doing something as illogical as that in both parties, i.e. there are non-sensical idiots across the board, not just in the Republican party.
This also means that there are perfectly reasonable members of both parties. There are level-headed Republicans; there are level-headed Democratics. Hell, there are even level-headed independents. Membership in a certain political party is by no means an automatic ticket for lunacy.
Didn’t I just say that?
Hooray. We’re talking about Bush. I’m telling him that he’s wrong about his assessment of the Republican party.
Just because someone is willing to say, “There are idiots on my side, too!” that doesn’t mean anything they say about the idiots on the OTHER side is automatically fact.
I thought it was fairly well accepted that the US government’s policies towards native people in America was atrocious. Genocide might be a slight exaggeration, but only very slight.
I didn’t intend to hijack the thread - I was merely responding to SPOOFE’s assertion that “There has been NOTHING done by any President in this country as extreme as attempting to name himself dictator.”
Presidents have supported the institution of slavery, the lack of voting rights for women, and, as I said, genocide of Native Americans. Yes, these things were long ago. No, they are not the same thing as declaring oneself dictator. I don’t think any president of the US will ever attempt to become dictator (or if it does happen, it will be a long, long time from now). However, I do not believe that US presidents are immune from attempting to perform extreme and immoral actions. The extreme nature of an act does not mean it is unthinkable or un-doable. People have supported horrible presidential decisions in the past; I find it likely that if by a remote chance a US president did declare himself dictator for life, there would at least be some support for this.
[end hijack]
I think it is the other way around.** Because** Jackson had support, he could ignore the Supreme Court and act against the Cherokee. But I am glad you stopped back by the thread. I initially thought you were one of the Bush-Bashers on drive-by, and I reacted accordingly. My apologies for the crude accusation. 
No appology necessary, Silenus. I should have been more clear to begin with instead of just posting a single line. 
Shall we wait until the military justice system runs its course on this before deciding this was done only by, “a small number of poorly trained reservists,” mmkay?
I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension.
Okay. Why do you think that he’s wrong about the Republican party? Do you also think he’s wrong about the Democrats? Do you really think there aren’t members of either party who wouldn’t go ahead with the situation if it meant their agendas would be achieved without struggle?