About that "Bush declares himself dictator" question,......

[Parisle]

----These things drive me nuts. "What would happen if Bush cancelled the elections, suspended the Constitution and imposed martial law?" Another poster gamely posed this question earlier, and the best answer is that something should ALREADY have happened,.... at the state government level. Something called a "nullification" resolution to be approved by state legislatures,.. asserting a state's authority to question untoward or unconstitutional executive orders. Thomas Jefferson wrote the original Nullification Resolution, himself. If several states would adopt such resolutions, then it could throw a real speed-bump in the path of even greater Constitutional disruption.

It is no accident or coincidence or "mirage" that we are concerned about this,.. just as there is no doubt about the direction and trajectory of Constitutional liberties and safeguards under the Bush regime,..... particularly those set in concrete in the Bill of Rights. Habeas corpus rights under fire? That's the whole ballgame, right there, folks. The individual states have to take the lead on this one, I'm afraid. Somebody has to be able to say "No" to George Bush.

[Hosnon]

1. I'm not certain but I think Nullification has been deemed illegitimate by

the Supreme Court.

Edit: Not sure if the issue has ever been dealt with by the Supreme Court.

[bowens43]

2. It's not going to happen. Take off the tin-foil hat.

If they tried something like this republicans and democrats would rise up against bushco. The republicans may be vile, ignorant, bigoted war-mongering assholes but they would not allow that to happen.

[havocmom]

3. Don't know about that. Plenty of the GOP voted for voiding Bill of Rights

here recently.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Please define "rise up".

Who would rise up, and to what degree? And against who?

We have seen the intelligence community purged of leadership that was not pro-Bush. The military, in a time of war, has been deliberately kept small to better control the officer corp, and those senior officers who disagree with the administration are being retired out at a steady rate - is it just coincidence that all the generals who are speaking out are recently retired? The FBI and the CIA and NSA have all been shaken up to put loyalists at the top and remove possible dissenters. And while Bush, who was never more than a figurehead to begin with, will step down at the end of his term, preserving the illusion of the rule of law, the cabal will do everything, everything in their power to replace him with one of their own.

We are living through a slow-motion coup, and be the time the majority realize it, it will be too late.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

8. ten years ago had ANYONE said a US president would dismantle...

the Bill of Rights, I'd have thought him/her ready for the loony-bin. Tin-foil-hats of yesterday are uniform-of-the-day in the present.

[Quantess]

12. Who woulda thunk that

the Bill of Rights would ever be accused of threatening our freedoms.
The Bill of Rights is actually anti-American, you see. :crazy:
It's something you might read in Through The Looking Glass, by that loopy, drug addled writer, Lewis Carroll.:silly:

[atreides1]

9. You give the Republicans too much credit

If they were convinced that they would be the ones making the new rules, those Republicans that you give so much credit too would be the first ones on the band wagon.

Did you know that the German people at first didn't support the Nazi Party, but when it looked like they were going to be "masters" of the world, enough of them got involved.


"The republicans may be vile, ignorant, bigoted war-mongering assholes", which means that they'll support it if Bush does it.

[Avalux]

4. It's a nice thought, but not viable.

The Kentucky Resolution was met with the Force Act (federal level) that countered it; involved tariffs (I hope my memory serves me correctly). I'd like to think your idea could work but with the lawlessness that's already occurred, don't think so.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Nullification ? Please google up 'nullification crisis' and 'US Civil War'

Nullification as a supposed right of state governments doesn't exist, and never has existed under the Constitution of 1787. This was covered in your high school History class assuming you went to school in the United States.

[sabbat hunter]

7. remember a little incident

called the nullification crisis. It happened back in the 1833 when South Carolina tried to nullify the US tarrif from being legal in that state. it failed when President Andrew Jackson declared the state's action bordering on treason. congress authorized President Jackson to take what ever steps necessary to enforce the tarriff in SC. it led to a split betweeh John C Calhoun, Jackson's VP and Jackson.

the seeds of this nullification crisis would be the first steps towards the Civil war a generation later.

[Parisle]

13. This is different,...

---- Going along with a tariff policy is not the same as acting in defense of the Constitution. Besides, the value of enacting nullification resolutions may be largely symbolic,... and they would get some media attention, eh? And if a given state legislature were going through the discussion and motions of passing such a resolution,.. at the same time when 90% of this administration's past actions were under investigation,.. and the president, himself faced with calls for impeachment,.. it will just give the administration greater opportunity to look bad. And if three or more states are entertaining nullification resolutions simultaneously, then I think it will draw a heightened attention and awareness to the actual degree of Constitutional crisis we face. It could even be couched in terms of a move towards an Amendment,.. Three-fourths of the states can get together and do anything they want to do, eh? And it doesn't have to pass,..... it just needs to get attention and be talked about.

[onenote]

14. afraid it might backfire

The attention such an effort would get probably would be couched in terms of the historical precedent -- that is, nullification would be described to the public as an illegitimate tactic that was last used before the Civil War by those who later sought to secede. The proponents would be characterized as kooks, or worse, and the repubs would have a field day making mock of state legislatures pursuing this rather than tending to the people's business.

Doesn't matter whether or not that is an accurate portrayal -- rather, I think it is a likely portrayal.

[Parisle]

16. Can't call it "nullification" It is now officially "Prior Dissent"

---- I actually wrote a "prior dissent" resolution for the group of dedicated secessionists in Vermont,... and they took it to the statehouse, where it failed to pass. You may read it at www.vermontrepublic.org (or .com ----- I forget which, but they called it a "state sovereignty" resolution. Bad idea.) There is no doubt about how the Bush machine would spin something of this nature, agreed. But if it was handled right, they they would be spinning against the best Constitutional scholars in the land,... most of whom are scarcely impressed with Bush's own usurpations. Illegitimate? Let us make the most of it.

---- The general underlying tenor of Bush's assault on the Bill of Rights could be expressed as, "Oh yeah? What are you gonna do about it?" As long as that question remains unanswered, then we may as well accept that we have an "unofficial, de facto dictator-in-waiting at this very moment. We have got to get this into the exclusive area of Constitutional debate,.. and we have to keep that debate uniquely AWAY from Washington's control,.. as well as from the national political industry's control. And we have to finally, once-and-for-all, no-shit-this-is-the-big-one,..DRIVE HOME to all Americans the reality of what is happening. It can be with a Perot-style 20-million-dollar infomercial,...it can be with democrats growing backbones,.. or it can be with the image of Bush threatening to send tanks into Vermont,... or West Virginia,... or Washington state. The military will not stand by Bush,... they will not fire on their own countrymen,... and the population-at-large will not stand for it, either.

---- And besides,.... I am God-awful tired of us waiting to see what Bush is going to do,.. and then just talking about it. We should be the dynamic part of this equation. We need to set the terms.

[LostinVA]

10. Nope -- can't do it

[Dhalgren]

11. What I am afraid of is another "Reichstags Fire". The first one,

on 9/11/01, worked well for them; a second one, maybe even bigger, would give them all of the cover they need (which isn't much). An incident of mass destruction would be just the ticket to sideline the vote or, more likely, sideline any investigation into the vote counting, which is what they would prefer.

Anyone who thinks these fascists couldn't or wouldn't do this a second time is, in my opinion, not looking clearly at the Dictator and his mob...

[lisainmilo]

15. I have the same fear!

I am also paranoid about election fraud.