What could happen if the elections are cancelled...

[Renew Deal]

Are times like these why the right wingers and gun advocates are screaming about their guns? Are they worried about canceled elections and gov't getting out of control? This was to be an analysis of the 2nd Amendment and I instead veered into an analysis of what could happen if all hell breaks loose.

The Declaration of Independence said:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

I know that the DOI isn't legally binding, but what were they trying to tell us here? Furthermore, the constitution says:

Article 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Was the intention here to allow people to protect themselves from foreign invaders or is this built in to protect Americans from a gov't that gets too powerful. I submit that if our current gov't cancels elections and does not follow Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 1 and 2 of the US code, then we have a constitutional crisis that is out of the hands of the gov't. It's extra-constitutional. In other words, canceling the elections and not allowing the state legislatures to meet would be ILLEGAL.

What options are left?
1. Rebellion
2. National Strike (civil disobedience)
3. Military uprising
Other

1. Rebellion would be bloody and costly. First of all, who are you rebelling against? Who will defend the state? Besides that, I think most Americans are too fat and lazy to fight for their rights, but I pray that I am wrong. I imagine that the left would be fighting side by side with the right. Also, rebellion against the US gov't has very little likelihood of succeeding.

2. National days of strike and protest could work. People would just stay home. This would shut down commerce and gov't. I think the power hungry would not care about any strikes.

3. A military uprising is possible. Here is the oath of the military:

'I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

This is interesting. I think the military was designed as the backup to prevent an illegal power grab. The military's allegiance is to the Constitution; not the President or the people. If the President is breaking the law, the military should step in to clean up the problem. At least that is my interpretation of the little information that I have.

So this is what I am thinking about. What do you all think?

Thanks to Walt Starr for the info on Title 3.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1975904

U.S. Federal and Military Oath of Office
http://vikingphoenix.com/politics/Election2000/Issues2000/NationalSecurity/oath.htm

[ewagner]

1. National Strike

Seems to be the most reasonable answer. Any kind of violence would lead to further justification of military force and perhaps impsition of Marshal Law.

I was encouraged to see in another post this morning that even the Freepers are upset about this. I think between the right and the left combined, there were be enough support for a General, National Strike to paralyze the country until Congress could begin impeachment proceedings....then things would get interesting.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

8. Who is this Marshal Law everyone keeps talking about?

Is he a Texas Ranger or something?

Or do you mean Martial Law?

[ewagner]

20. Blush.....

I know better....I just didn't DO better.

[aquart]

11. And get EVERY pol on record about it.

[liberal72]

2. March in the streets.

If that doesn't work rebellion. Doesn't have to be violent, but show that we won't take it anymore. The extreme would be a violent rebellion.

[napi21]

3. Military uprising could happen, but not right away.

I think that would have to be something that had a build up. I can see civil disobedience, but it would depend on just what attack had accured. If it was something that "nobody wouuld have thought of" the shock factor would quiet things for a while. That's why lots of people supported the shrub FOR A WHILE after 9/11. We all watched the violence in Israel and Pakistan, but really never thought it would happen here. After the initial shock wore off, people started to question why and should our leaders have done more to prevent it.

If they tried to postpone the election because of a threat...Katie bar the door!!!

[Renew Deal]

6. I wonder how a military uprising would be initiated?

Would it be from the top or the bottom? And if it is from the top, who protects the pResident? Blackwater?

[rabid_nerd]

4. #1 and #3

A rebellion by both the public and the military.

[punpirate]

5. Hate to say it...

... but nothing will happen. Half the population won't notice (because they don't vote, anyway). 40% of the remainder will be delighted because their side will have won, illegally, yet again.

M'self, I think a few dozen guillotines rolled up on the White House lawn might change the administration's mind about postponing an election....

[Renew Deal]

7. What do you mean by guillotines?

Do you mean the threat of that or do you mean that the Gov't will guillotine citizens?

[punpirate]

9. Uh, think you got that backwards....

:P

They are easily made in one's basement out of materials commonly available from any hardware store....

And, think about how much fun one would have towing one down the Beltway.... :P

[Renew Deal]

12. lol

It reminds me of the scene from Moore's movie where they show Clinton with the witch hunt. Burn 'em.

[iangb]

10. And I hate to say it, but you are..........

.......probably right.

As long as the cancellation is sold as being 'to protect our freedoms' and/or to 'prevent disruption of the War on Terror' then I suspect it'll pass muster with the majority of people.

Those speaking out against a cancellation will be portrayed as 'friends of Osama' or worse.

[punpirate]

13. Wish I were wrong...

... but, I've seen too much of the first corollary to Murphy's Law:

Murphy was an optimist.

Cheers.

[NightOwwl]

14. They've screwed themselves (again)

They say we may have to consider "postponing" the election because terrorist attacks are imminent.

Today Bush was giving a speech. Seems to me all he talked about was amending the Constitution and insisting the Iraq war was justified because America is so much safer now.

:wtf:

[tom_paine]

15. Anything. And may God Help Us All

n/t

[Ready4Change]

16. Brace for a perhaps outlandish suggestion.

I'm not proposing that there should be a violent revolt, nor that any particular action should spark such.

But I think, should some circumstance bring a violent revolt to life, it's just possible that persons on the left could find themselves marching alongside persons from the right. All such persons might find common cause in restoring true democracy, constitutional rights, and kicking out a corrupt government that is no longer representing the American people.

I mention this because I always see these scenarios being positioned as left vs right. But I'm not convinced that model fits all possibilities.

[Freya]

17. It would never be that simple

"But I think, should some circumstance bring a violent revolt to life, it's just possible that persons on the left could find themselves marching alongside persons from the right. All such persons might find common cause in restoring true democracy, constitutional rights, and kicking out a corrupt government that is no longer representing the American people."

Although the right and left might join in such a situation - the moment a dictator would be removed whoever would be leading the right would IMMEDIATLY turn on the left and attempt take control.

After all - someone would have to be in charge. The right - by its nature - isn't in to democracy. And they sure as hell are not going to let someone from the left take over. The right might very well just install a new dictatorship over the old one.

Of course this would never happen, so it's all just hypothetical.

[Ready4Change]

18. And those on the right think the same of the left.

At this moment, people on Free Republic believe the loss of rights following 9/11 rests squarely on the shoulders of Democrats.

I think both the right and left are shooting past the mark. I think the loss of rights comes not from the right nor the left. It comes from this administration, which is neither.

Republicans want fiscal responsiblity. They want a strong defense, used sparingly. The love, and will defend unto death, the constitution.

This administration spends like no tomorrow. It uses the military freely, stretching it thin while cutting it's members benefits. And it has actively eliminated and reduced constitutional rights, and in many circumstances, outright violated the same. Republicans should be opposing this administration, not the left.

Democrats want to harness the fruits of capitalism to the good of the people. They want a safety net to help the unfortunate. They want universal access to health care, quality public schools and higher education. They want sound environmental policy to ensure our children will have a healthy world to live in.

This administration is harnessing the people for the enrichment of capitalism. The safety net is being actively burned. Health care is being hamstrung, children being left behind, and higher education is being left to rot. Meanwhile, air and water quality standards have been reduced, protected forests are being opened to logging, and the solution to energy infrastructure problems is "burn more oil." Democrats should focus their opposition on this administration, and not lose focus by aiming at all of the right.

This administration serves no one but themselves, and the right and left are being played for fools.

[kayell]

19. "people on Free Republic believe the loss of rights following 9/11 rests

squarely on the shoulders of Democrats."

Since the repugs currently control ALL branches of the govt., how exactly do they imagine that could happen? I know freepers are delusional, but this takes some unusually convoluted thinking.

[Renew Deal]

21. The D's voted with the R's to get the Patriot Act passed.

So it's all the D's fault. :crazy:

[Ready4Change]

22. I kid you not.

That, or it's Clintons fault. Or we wouldn't have all this trouble if Democrats weren't so soft on defense and terrorism. Or that if Liberals loved their God more and themselves less we all wouldn't be plagued with all these toads...

You get the picture. Listen to right wing radio, or the sound bites chosen to be on the major news channels.

[kayell]

23. Oh, I get it

The wingers blame the Dems, because it was obviously the dems job to defend the constitution, since everyone knows that the repukes won't. There is definately a certain twisted logic there.

[Walt Starr]

24. Keep in mind, Congress could hand over the power to them

to postpone or cancel elections.

I shit you not!

All that Congress has to do is amend Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Code and the executive branch could be given dictatorial powers over our elections!

Call your congresscritters and remind them that there is already a provision for what to do if the election must be stopped due to a terrorist attack! CITE THE LAW LISTED ABOVE!!!!

[Renew Deal]

27. I called and cited that law.

I hope my loser does something. He has been pretty useless fot he last 11 years.

[Renew Deal]

28. He actually got back to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1985567

[YNGW]

25. I don't see it happening.

Wouldn't the potential for canceling the elections by committing terrorists acts be an open invitation to militants both foreign and domestic to disrupt the process if they felt like the results weren't going to go their way? Seems the best thing to do would be to hold the election regardless, sending a message that the American people will go forward with what we normally do and that we will not permit outside forces to stop our election process.

[Walt Starr]

26. The meme is already out there

This was another "bring it on" episode. By pushing this bullshit trial balloon, they've guaranteed that both internal and external terrorist organizations will attempt an attack to disrupt the elections.