Do we need a Constitutional disaster plan?

[LuckyTheDog]

I asked this a bit earlier in the politics forum as a rhetorical question to Democratic Party leaders. But I think it is something all Democrats should think about.

What is our party's plan for action if (as people like Paul Craig Roberts have suggested could happen) Bush finds or creates an excuse to remain in power after January of 2009? Or if the elections in 2008 are "postponed" in order to deal with a "national emergency" of some kind?

In other words: what is our contingency plan for responding to a fascist takeover?

If Bush or some future GOP president staged a fascist-style takeover, what would/could we do? We need people thinking about who would do what and when -- who would work from outside the country, who would lead protests here, what tactics would be acceptable and unacceptable, etc. It's kind of an ironic twist on the advice they give you at Ready.gov. Just as you need some kind of plan for natural disasters, terrorism, etc., you need a plan in case a Constitutional disaster strikes without warning.

I admit that I don't know yet what I would do. But I do know that it's better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it.

[madeline_con]

1. A coup, of course. n/t

[rucky]

2. Why postpone elections when you can fix them?

We've been under a facist-style takeover for seven years, most have barely noticed it, and we still have no viable plan if we think voting will solve this.

[pinto]

3. Bush will not remain in the office after January '09. Nor will there be a

(R) president inaugurated in Jan. Democrats will most likely retake the office and build a larger Democratic majority in the Congress.

The 'national emergency' hyperbole running around the net is just that. Hyperbole. Congress will not be dissolved. National martial law will not be declared or implemented.

Bush wants out. This is his only failure he hasn't been able to duck, given the high profile of the job. Previously, he had cover. Not so now. He'll stumble on 'till '09 and hightail it to a condo in Dallas.

The sky is not falling.

Just my two cents. :hi:

[rwenos]

4. System Actually Provides Needed Flex

If Bush were to declare that bullshit emergency executive order of his, there would be two avenues of attack, legally speaking: (1) Congressional action, and (2) court action. If Bush went against declarations both from Congress and from the Courts -- there would be hell to pay.

My dad, a retirned high school government teacher, used to say that one of the best things the Framers ever came up with to guard against such things was the vertical separation of powers -- i.e., that local police forces and state national guards have a fair amount of physical firepower.

Also, there would be MAJOR opposition in the senior military.

Don't see it happening. Bush doesn't have the balls, and the conservatives have already decided he's "quacking like a duck."

[frogcycle]

5. but then again

bush has never REALLY been the decider

cheney would do it, and the money crowd he represents just might decide to go for it

most "conservatives" are just shills going along for the ride, thinking the real power people give a damn about abortion and prayer and gays and all that - they are lackeys, who would be subjugated along with us

the ONLY thing stopping it is the military not being loyal to a strongman when push comes to shove

state national guards have been decimated; local police would not stand a chance against our military



nope, no planning on our part means squat

either the military brass say bullshit and
declare their own short-term martial law while congress officially removes the bad guys from office and locks them up, thus restoring our constitutional government relatively quickly and peaceably, or the brass goes along and we're toast.

[regnaD kciN]

6. You're right (unfortunately)...

I think the only disaster plan we have available to us is "hope and pray the military refuses to go along with it."

If they side with the Constitution against their Commander-in-Chief, it will be a choice for Bush between bowing out gracefully or going down fighting...and I don't see Chimpy willing to be a martyr for the cause of authoritarianism. More likely, he'd accept exile and a life of retirement near his pal Bandar's palace.

If they side with Bush over the Constitution, the only plan I could recommend is "run for the nearest border," because we'd be looking at something here not unlike the first days of Chile under Pinochet. :scared:

[frogcycle]

7. I happen to have a lot of confidence in our military

oh, sure, getting promoted means ass-kissing and not speaking out and all that, so plenty of them who are being "good soldiers" publicly <em>appear</em> to be complete toadies. And I happen to think Petraeus <em>is </em> a complete toady. That's how he got the job. Same may be true of Lute. But when it came to choice between obeying the CinC vs supporting the Constitution, I suspect they DO have their "plan b." And IMO, it would be pretty easy. They have all the muscle they need. All they need to be able to do is get the word out that the CinC has been relieved of command, and name the new CinC. Oh, it would require a brief confrontation:

• bush issues order to Commander, Central Command to (do something unconstitutional);
  
• he says 'Sir, you have issued an illegal order; I cannot obey it, and I cannot allow others to obey it. It is my duty under the Constitution to prohibit that order from being carried out."
  
• bush probably tells him he's fired and calls somebody else. Hopefully he gets stonewalled.
  At that point the general better have his ducks in a row with congressional supporters, and Joint Chiefs, who will declare his actions to be appropriate. He reports to them what he was told to do; they call an emergency session and ram impeachment through in about five minutes, and call for arrest of the entire damned administration. With Pelosi as CinC and chief executive, she's got Secret Service, FBI, Federal Marshals, and the military all at her disposal.
  

An alternative scenario would be that the guy at the top is willing to pass along the order. That gets messier, because all his underlings need to then stand up to HIM. But like Nixon's Friday Night Massacre, which was his ultimate undoing, if bush started this ball rolling, as long as it got resisted and publicized, he'd be toast. And I cannot conceive of large numbers of top brass just 'going along.' They mostly hate his weaselly guts.

[davepc]

8. well, the end all to be all is amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights.

[siri2k]

9. 'What is our contingency plan for responding to a fascist takeover?'

Great question/point!