OK hubby just scared me half to death

[NMDemDist2]

when Kerry wins, and Bush is lame duck til January and there is another terrorist attack here, can Bush then declare martial law and stop the transfer of power? :scared:

edit spelling

[coloradodem2005]

1. I would hope that people would not accept that.

A second terrorist attack would look suspicious. I think people would start calling for Bush's head.

[Warpy]

10. They wouldn't, but it would take time

This has been a persistent concern. The Bush criminal enterprise was willing to toss out the constitution, a body of law concerning state's rights, and a long tradition of limiting voter fraud to petty local concerns to seize power. That they would allow the "rabble" to deprive them of it is out of character.

However, they've lost the military, the CIA, the FBI, and much of their own party. I sincrely doubt they will be able to hang on to power for long, should they overturn an election and declare themselves the equivalent of royalty (which is what the pinchbeck Bushes have always wanted). My guess is that there will be great civil unrest followed by a military takeover of some description, should they decide to follow such a disastrous but predictable course.

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, but let's keep the faith if it does.

[hackwriter]

23. Wow, that's pretty sad...

...when we have to hope for a military or CIA coup. :)

:scared:

[LoZoccolo]

2. Not practically.

There's isn't enough of a military left to declare martial law, I would think.

[NMDemDist2]

3. i don't think the military would support it anyway, do you? n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Ask Scalia.

[mazzarro]

5. Now that is an interestingly scary scenario!

Considering the pliable news media and sheepish citizenry and the rubber-stamp congress and of course obliging SC. I am at loss here - what do we expect and/or do?

[malatesta1137]

6. you mean

Bush would plot the SECOND attack on American soil of his presidency? Your hubby might be onto something.

[NMDemDist2]

9. I'm not making any accusations

but the more i think about it, the less likely I think the military will go along.

I figure that with the Bushit's ability to shoot themselves in the foot at every turn, they will do something phenomenally stupid in the next couple months

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. No. Conditions are not ripe enough

Democratic traditions are still far too rooted for that to fly. Even serious talk or leaks about that would set back the right wing by a decade or more. However if Bush is reelected, and they continue to undermine Democracy to the extent that they are able to be seen as plausibly seating another puppet President in 2008, at that point I can begin to conceive of scenarios like that as becoming plausible. If this crew gets 8 more years to consolidate power and propagate, I will be far more worried about the lack of any constraints on their power.

[JuniperLea]

8. since he can't win a third term

it would be no holds barred for bushie! he could do anything he wanted! and you can be sure whatever he does would lead directly to money going into the pockets of all his corporate chums.

[wjsander]

11. I hope he does

Then the Republican Party would officially be dead.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

21. Yeah but that party has died twice already

First Federalists, then Whigs, and now Republicans. They keep rearing their ugly heads.

[nuxvomica]

12. "Soldier, put down your gun!"

"I got to get to that phone to declare the marital law!"

"I'm sorry, sir. I can't let you do that."

[x_y_no]

13. No way.

He'd have a revolution on his hands.

[serryjw]

14. AFTER Electoral College meets/votes.....Kerry IS PRESIDENT!

He does not have to be sworn in. I was concerned about this also; so I asked a poli sci professor at my college.

[NMDemDist2]

15. kewl thanks n/t

[NMDemDist2]

19. but isn't that in Jan? the EC doesn't meet right away do they? n/t

[serryjw]

20. I beleive they meet in december

probably about a month b/t election and EC meeting, BUT if anything would happen to JK after the election and he already won, democrats would nominate someone in his place. Delegates are not pledged to nominee.So it would still be a democrat...

[tritsofme]

22. They do meet in January

Because they cannot vote until the new Congress takes session in case of a tie.

[serryjw]

24. They meet December 13,2004

This can NOT be changed by Federal Law.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/state_responsibilities.html#meeting

[Lefty Pragmatist]

16. Tin foil hat time.

That aint gonna happen, folks. I remember the Freepers claiming that Clinton would use the 2000 vote controversy to extend his term indefinitely. Now you're doing the same thing.

Silly, silly, silly.

[NMDemDist2]

17. didn't say it was logical, just scared me (and I am fearless)

ROFL

[RafterMan]

18. Martial law?

Him and what army?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. He's not the first person to believe such a scenario

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38f4e5802e35.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ef6d595cca.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394018397e5c.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39da437b2387.htm