There’s nothing to stop them from inaugurating the President-elect, though. The President-elect just has to find a judge, take the oath, and then, legally, he’s President.
Calvin Coolidge famously took the oath of office while on vacation from his notary public father, after getting the news that Harding died.
Really, I think all an American coup would take is a measure of support from the highest echelons of military authorities. Troops follow orders, and if ordered by their immediate commanding officers to “do nothing” in the face of a coup, nothing would be done by the majority. Sure there would be some who would disobey their orders and follow the constitution, but so what? If Bush positioned “loyal” generals and their troops around Washinton capital and at significant locations around the country (likewise transfering “unloyal” troops overseas or to distant locations), a coup would be successful. Who could oppose it? Sure the population may revolt, but why/how? Revolt would cause anarchy and do you really think Americans would be willing to descend into anarchy – and its resulting declines in living standards – or just submit to dictator powers and maintain their standard of living? (Just take mutinous cities electricity away for a week, they’ll start fighting themselves forgetting all about any federal coup. Imagine L.A. without power, anarchy within hours.) Would entire US divisions “march” on Washington from Florida or Texas? And even if some did, “Bush” troops are controlling significant pieces of infrastructure rendering their advance mute. Air power would quickly dissuade any “Republican” troops to the futileness of their advance.
All it would take is a “terrorist” attack (real or invented) near the election time (to suspend the actual election) or in early January to begin such a scenario. It would provide the legitimacy necessary for most Americans to submit to dictatorial powers. “An attack on the structures of American power has required I, as President of the United States of America, find it necessary to suspend democratic processes to confront these events. In a timely manner, I assure you all, democracy will be….yada, yada.”
Now I honestly doubt this would ever happen, but I’m saying I really think it would be a lot easier than people are making it out to be. (Thinking it would be especially easy for a “war time” president like Bush who closer to military matters, generals, and troops than a peace time president.)
But that’s bullshit. As I pointed out earlier, Bush doesn’t have any direct authority over election officials. He can’t just order election officials to shut down and go home, he has no authority over them. So he gives the speech, what happens? Why do people obey? Do you honestly think the state of Massachussets is going to suspend elections just because Bush said to? What about local and state offices, are the elections for those “suspended” too? How do you order the state of Texas not to elect a new Governor? Have you read in the papers what Bush’s latest poll readings are? Below 30 percent? How fucking low do you think they’ll sink after he makes that speech? How fucking outraged do you think people will be? And why would a terrorist attack cause us to shut down polling places?
We have NO federal elections in this country. Each state elects a slate of presidential electors as they see fit. And if enough polling places are shut down by the military (assuming the military follows orders) such that most states are unable to vote for president, then the constitution is clear.
And why the fuck do you assume that the military is going to follow orders to destroy democracy? That’s fucking ridiculous. Have you ever met anyone who has served in the military? Yeah, most soldiers would follow orders to “do nothing”. And most people in the military would indeed “do nothing” when they saw Clinton (sorry, I’m tired of typing “Bush” all the time), when they saw Clinton seizing power. They wouldn’t do anything because they’d assume that nothing needed to be done. And they’d be right, the only reason military force would be needed to oust Clinton is if some factions in the military supported him. And then you’d have civil war.
To claim that all it takes is a few key general is just ludicrous. Generals give orders to colonels. Colonels give orders to majors. Majors give orders to captains. Captains give orders to seargeants. Seargeants tell lieutants what orders to give, then the lieutenants give those orders to seargeants. Seargeants give orders to corporals. Corporals give orders to privates.
This isn’t the middle ages, where common soldiers had personal loyalty to a particular general. They may have personal loyalty to their particular CO…but no CO stays in one position very long. So when the traitorous general gives the orders to shut off electricity to LA, or shoot down demonstrators, what happens? The people in his chain of command might be too scared to arrest him right off, but they will do what you suggested they do earlier…nothing. Sorry, communication difficulties. Radio is broken, I didn’t hear that last command, repeat. We will hold position until further communication, over. And more likely they will tell the traitorous general that those orders are illegal and refuse to obey them.
American servicemen are American citizens, just like you and me. The notion that they would blindly follow orders to destroy American democracy is ludicrious. If your boss came into your office one day and told you who to vote for, would you listen? Why wouldn’t you blindly obey authority?
And the notion that the people would give in to the dictatorship to avoid “anarchy”, well, you’d HAVE anarchy whether you wanted it or not, unless the so-called dictator was disposed of within a few days. Even if most people would rather have peace and quiet, you’d have tens of millions of people who wouldn’t, including Governors who control national guard units. How do the traitorous elements of the Army seize control of a city’s power plant when those power plants are defended by the state guard? Why would a governor give up power to some tinpot dictator? The dictator would be disposed of in days or we would HAVE civil war, like it or not.
It isn’t just a matter of Clinton seizing power one day, and suddenly we’re living in a dictatorship. Dictatorship demands continous control over the population. You have to keep the army happy. You have to shut down free speech and free assembly. You have to shoot people who don’t obey orders. You have to shoot people who disobey orders to shoot people who don’t obey orders. And you have to shoot people who disobey THOSE orders. How do companies continue to function when elements of the traitorous military shut down travel? If the military doesn’t stop travel, how do they stop loyalists from organizing? Do the traitors shut down the phone system? The internet?
A dictatorship would plunge the country into an economic collapse, unless the vast majority of the population supported dictatorship. And the fact that you believe that most Americans would blindly support a dictatorship says quite a bit about you.
How, exactly, would you go about “taking away their electricity?” Blow up the lines? Station troops on top of Hoover Dam? A plot that complicated has absolutely zero chance of happening in this country. Too many blabber-mouths with the need to tell somebody secrets. The details would be all over the net within minutes. Loyal divisions? Not in this country. The orders would come down, and some second lieutenant with more guts than brains will refuse to order his troops to do something wrong, and the whole mess falls apart. Our troops aren’t like those in some shithole Third-World country…they have brains, and they think.
What if GW Busch and crew refused to step down?
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly (and certain SDMB posters) would be telling us all how this is for the good of the nation and anyone who disagrees are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. 
If it would be easier than people are making it out to be, then why do you “honestly doubt this would ever happen”?
rjung: Are you trying to fill up your quota for contentless posts early this week?
Yeah? Then why the fuck don’t you give us the names of those certain posters?
Oh, it was a joke? That’s even worse.
Which SDMB posters are you accusing of treason? Or, which SDMB posters are you JOKINGLY accusing of treason? Treason isn’t a joke, son.
Put up or shut up. Retract this or support it.
You know, NYC had a wee little attack the morning of the Mayoral Primary in 2001, you may have heard of it. Postpone the vote for 2 weeks, and vote again, that’s all it took.
The existing mayor, who was hailed as a hero for his superb job of managing the city during the crisis was out on his ear when his term ended a few months later. If anybody could have made a case for staying in office beyond his term due to a terror attack, it was Rudy Guiliani, and he failed. Bush doesn’t have a chance in hell of making an extension sound anything but laughable.
There’s nothing wrong with rjung’s use of the vernacular of the day, no requirement to specify particular people. See whitehouse.gov for many examples of usage of the construct with respect to ‘some democrats.’
Funny, none of those cites links “some Democrats” with “treason”. Care to try again?
:rolleyes:
So if Rush Limbaugh or George Bush jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?
“Accusing of treason”? :rolleyes:
My own take is that, given the events of the last five years, if Bush and Cheney announce that they plan to barracade themselves in office and refuse to step down, there will be a portion of the political far right that will reflexively defend their moves using whatever cockamamie patriotic/anti-terrorist/freedom-loving excuse gets tossed out. And with the SDMB being a fairly representative slice of the populace as a whole, I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks here end up echoing the same talking points.
That too. 
Well, since that could be said about almost any political position one could imagine, it’s a contentless statement. If Hillary is elected president and declares that the US is now a communist nation and that all private property is hereby abolished then: there will be a portion of the political far left that will reflexively defend her moves using whatever cockamamie egalitarian/anti-capitalist/socialist-loving excuse gets tossed out. And with the SDMB being a fairly representative slice of the populace as a whole, I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks here end up echoing the same talking points.
It wasn’t much funnier when someone else said it.
Nope, jumping off a bridge doesn’t win arguments. However, the administration has amply proven that sleazy tactics do, and no one who goes along with them ever seems to call them on it. It’d be unamerican of those supporters not to grant the same latitude to the loyal opposition.
Look here.
I am as close as it gets to a Bush supporter on these boards. I’m one of those that gets all the accusations of knee-jerk loyalism and mindless blah blah blah.
Bottom line is, if Bush (or any other President) suggested suspending elections and ruling by fiat, I would fully support having him arrested, tried, and shot for treason. And I would take up arms (if necessary) against him. And all of my Republican, gun-owning friends would agree with me. And I am not addressing anyone in particular, but anyone who suggests that I would betray my country by supporting any dictator, even a Republican one, can stick his copy of The Nation up his nose.
If Bush can’t sell himself as Dictator-for-Life to what you people call a mindless Republican, what makes you think he has any chance with the 49% of the country who didn’t even vote for him?
Sheesh.
You guys can talk yourselves into anything.
Regards,
Shodana
Amazing, isn’t it?
“Regards, Shodana” 
-Let the speculation begin!
Did you have some surgery recently that you want to tell us about…?