How would you respond to a constitutional crisis?
 

If America were to become a state of one-party rule, a true oligarchy in which only those who attained power within the Party would have access to government positions, and where the Constitution was only utilized at the will of the Party, how would you respond?

Elections may exist, but for all but the most paltry posts, the results are rigged, manipulated, or otherwise predetermined regardless of the voters' will. The Constitution is reinterpreted to the Party's ends, enforcing their power over the citizenry in court unwilling or incapable of challenging the Party.

Yes, I know (or at least hope) the chances are small of it happening, but all the same, how would you respond?

1) Support the Party so long as they are generally benevolent and use their authority to get good things done.
2) Follow the laws and stay clear of trouble one way or the other
3) Move abroad until things changed for the better
4) Sympathise with the opposition within the bounds of the law but no risky behaviour
5) Actively engage in non-violent opposition to the Party
6) Actively support violent opposition to Party rule
7) Pick up a weapon and liberate the Constitution and the country
8) A more imaginative approach...explain in post!

To stand and do nothing is allow to let everything that people have paid with their lives with be in vain. Why should we as people ever allow governments rule us, their job is to serve us and to serve us in the way which we want (as a population). If you don't make a stand at some point and wait until the end then maybe their will be no one to stand with.

Violence should only be a last resort. Which is why i would engage in non violent opposition.

Non-violence would be the first resort in an effort to restore the rule of the people over their government. But I would be willing to take up arms in such a situation as other means were inneffective. I can't just let us languish for decades. But then, I've spent time already in service, so it would to me be just further under the oath I've already taken. I do respect non-violence movements and hope they are successful--I agree that violence is a last resort.

Josh

this is exactly the reason why a government should be afraid, terrified, of the people. The thought of armed intervention by the populace. That is why we've consistantly seen a legislative/judicial tearing away at the second amendment throughout the last centuru.

For me, it would really depend on what sort of oligarchy we're talking about. If they're really benign, my opposition would only take the form of speaking out against them, but if there's some serious repression going on, I'm not entirely uncomfortable with the idea of joining the armed resistance.

The one option I absolutely wouldn't support was going into exile, or only as a very last resort. I love my country, and part of that is attempting to set her straight if I have to.

I'm confused. What do you mean if? It's already happened.

Wow. Wow. Can you elaborate on why you feel this way? I find myself utterly unable to sympathize with you.



When government becomes entirely unaccountable to its citizenry, the people have a right and an obligation to destroy that government and replace it with another. In the event that American leaders became, for all practical purposes, unelected, I would resist the government VIOLENTLY as soon as it became clear that non-violent methods were not going to be effective.

I can they are mostly one big happy family
http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html
http://www.wargs.com/political/



When that day comes, I would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

Years ago, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took it seriously then...I take it seriously now.

All family Forest link proved to me is that everyone is related somewhere down the line..... lol :lol: 18th cousin 14 times removed ..... damn how do you explain that when crashing the family reunion that only stops at 2nd cousin twice removed?

the poll is impossible for me to respond to

1. the united states is already, arguably, an oligarchy.
2. the hypothetical situations you outline to define the "crisis" are arguably already normal features of american political life.
so....
3. what kind of constitutional crisis are you really talking about? it would seem to me that a crisis would require Events to shape it, to make it into a perceptable crisis.

Most regular families don't keep track of their family histories,
like the "blue blood" families do.
Books like brooks peerage, ect.
are very important to the elite.
If you name doesn't appear in the proper linage
you don't get married....with honor.
It is the same with the two party oligarchy
and ballot restrictions.
You don't get the Dem/Rep nomination
if you don't have the proper linage.
36 of our presidents can prove their linage
back to european royality.
We basicly have a democratic monarchy
we get to choose the king every 4 years,
rather that direct succesion.

btw if you think oligarchy in class terms, rather than in family lineage terms, applying it to the states makes more sense. you could also reprocess it through the idea of ideological uniformity, which you could link to class.

there is more to inbreeding than is dreamed of in your philosophy, horatio.

If you feel that the US has already reached the situation I've described, then instead of answering with what you would do in such a situation, simply answer with what you are doing in such a situation. I understand that many people feel a number of the steps I've noted have already happened. Perhaps its my strong optimism that allows me to believe we haven't crossed the threshold yet, but in either case, I think if I had preented it as having already happened, then it would merely become a debate over whether or not that was the case, instead of focussing on what people thought were appropriate responses to such a situation...my goal in posting the question. Also, if I were to say it happened already, that would bring in specifics of the administration and peoples' views on Bush et al.

Right now, I'm concentrating my efforts on uncovering the wire tap list. There is, somewhere out there, a list of all the people in the US who have been wire tapped under the current administration. I'd like to see the list and find out why they are being imorally spied on. If I find terrorists on the list, then I *could* be wrong about it. If, however, I find what I expect, then the wiretaps will have nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with a police state ever growing in power.

Mind you, I would never do anything illegal to my ends. I will not sink to their level to find justice.

How does one go about finding such a list and then determining the motivations of who is on it?

Mainly newsmedia connections. I'm not sure if you (ustwo) are aware, but I'm considering becoming a politician in the next 10-12 years. To that end, I've been making a lot of friends lately. Larger news organizations have many, many resources to exhaust, and they can sometimes have access to materials that are not easily accessed. Frankly, I'm no closer to finding it today than I was a year ago, but at least I'm trying. I have calls into friends at several newspapers and tv stations right now. I've also called several people I happen to know in law that could protect me from litigation. My only concern is that the document is probably classified and hidden away somewhere, and I'm having trouble reconciling outing classified material with my promise not to break any laws. I've decided to investigate to the extent of my abilities, and only release the material if it is found that the people on the list are simply people who dislike the current administration and such, versus known terrorists and people who actualy pose a threat to national security.

As far as motivations, it's very simple and legal to find background information on citizens of the US. If I had the list, it would be a simple matter of verifying that the people were or weren't a threat to National Security. If, for example, there are two 80 year old men born and raised in New York who have absolutely no ties to any foreign power, organization, or govnerment, and who's only crime seems to be talking about how Bush is an idiot...well it's obvious that these people are not planning the next 9/11. This is obviously a simplification of the my means, but I belieev that it serves to illustrate my intent.

Honestly, since the existence of the wire tap list is already public knowledge, it should be declassified. If there are dangerous terrorists in the US, then they undoubtedly are using a type of communication that would avoid a wire tap now. It's become useless.

Biting on the threadjack above... I still cannot fathom how the wiretaps, as of yet, equate to a constitutional crisis. For one the President is the COmmander-in-Chief. As such he has inherent powers, he also has delegated powers, where he is allowed to act. Actions have been challenged, they have been upheld, as I pointed out here in my FISA COURT REVIEW THREAD (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101670). Then there are all of those Gitmo detentions threads which other court decisions, Quirin, Haupt, Rasul, Hamdi, have again upheld. I don't know where the disconnection is, the Courts are the interpretors of the law, seems to me if any actions are allowed then they are legal.

------------------------------------------------------------

In a constitutional crisis, don't know how I'd react.

To me one of the most real constitutional threats has been grossly overlooked here, perhaps even ignored, I think Ustwo might've brought it up in the past; to bring it up, the SC fucked up big time on the eminent domain ruling not to long ago. I would think that private property would trump any government policy which is grossly left open to abuse and expense at the hands of the citizenry.

------------------------------------------------------------

But then again I suppose, a true constitutional crisis would stem deeper and negate the government as a whole. Couldn't look to the courts, but who is one to rely on one ownes judgement, and what would make any other person my steward or correction in light of such a dire situation?

Mojo- you make a very good point about emminent domain
I agree it is very serious.
Also one of the major goals of communisim according to Karl Marx.
As far as the wiretaping,.....It is no secret that I am no fan of Bush,
but I have very little concern his spying has any affect on me.
The crisis as I see it is the example set for the future.
Rumsfeld says this WOT could go on for 20+ years
The next 5+ adminstrations will be a wartime CiC
As much as I dislike the right wing statest's
the left wing statest's are far more dangerous.

I wouldn't feel bad about moving abroad, I'm already eyeing up Canada pretty seriously, but I also wouldn't feel too bad about joining up with a rebellion, even a violent one.

I think that non-violence is a great ideal, but that until the military budgets of nations get down below education budgets, non-violent resistance is doomed to be looked at as simple activism.

There is also the problem that if a country were to adopt a single party rule, there would be a large contingent of people who agreed with what the ruling bodies were doing, and would hamper any resistance.

It seems to me that the best form of non-violent resistance that a person can take is to simply move away.

I'm not really worried about one party rule up here in canada :lol: but if it were to happen I would follow the rules and stay out of trouble while keeping an ear to the ground until I find hat there are enough people concerned enough to die for their freedom to actually overthrow the government.