3 ms·

I’m really confused by this line of reasoning. If someone had the power and popular and/or oligarchic support necessary to overturn the entire current system o

I’m really confused by this line of reasoning. If someone had the power and popular and/or oligarchic support necessary to overturn the entire current system of government and transition to being some kind of emperor, couldn’t they just stage a military coup right now? Why would they wait for an election to take place? And given that no coup has been executed, what is everyone so worried about? Why would that person even bother campaigning? If they don’t have the necessary military support, then any coup attempt would just be put down by the military. Simply declaring oneself emperor does not make it so. I feel like people have watched too many movies.

derdi 2y ago
That person might want to become constitutional commander in chief and hope that the executive will follow their unconstitutional orders.
OutOfHere 2y ago
The answer is simple: US politicians excel at legalizing corruption. They follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of law and order. As such, there is no need for a coup at all for a one-party system to exist. To set the background, a one-party system is now gravely risked due to a partial judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court level. The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. To list examples of legalized corruption, gerrymandering is done in clever ways to win states. Rights to vote are often unfairly denied to groups of people. Third-party candidates are cleverly added to take away votes where they matter, such as in Florida, etc. As such, the military cannot come into the picture because everything remains neatly legalized.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  Sure but the thing US politicians are good at doing is by definition the status quo. So we have backed down from "we are in danger of losing democracy" to "the status quo is bad". I don't disagree that the status quo is bad. There is a lot of hysteria in the media right now about the court. It is doing a lot of things that were avoided for political reasons in the past, and the reasons it isn't avoiding them now are also political. But it's not like it's operating outside of the law. For example Roe v Wade was always on shaky ground legally, it just aligned with people's (and my own) sense of morality so they liked it. If there is massive popular support for nationwide abortion legalization, Congress is free to pass that amendment, the court can't stop them. I am personally pro abortion but also pro Roe v Wade overturn because I think the rule of law is more important than any individual right. I would support an amendment on abortion, but obviously that isn't going to happen because not enough people do. > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. > Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad? It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life. The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
    - pfannkuchen 2y ago
      "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... How is that unclear?
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        Here is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court: The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation. I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.

derdi 2y ago

That person might want to become constitutional commander in chief and hope that the executive will follow their unconstitutional orders.

OutOfHere 2y ago

The answer is simple: US politicians excel at legalizing corruption. They follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of law and order. As such, there is no need for a coup at all for a one-party system to exist. To set the background, a one-party system is now gravely risked due to a partial judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court level. The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. To list examples of legalized corruption, gerrymandering is done in clever ways to win states. Rights to vote are often unfairly denied to groups of people. Third-party candidates are cleverly added to take away votes where they matter, such as in Florida, etc. As such, the military cannot come into the picture because everything remains neatly legalized.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
Sure but the thing US politicians are good at doing is by definition the status quo. So we have backed down from "we are in danger of losing democracy" to "the status quo is bad". I don't disagree that the status quo is bad. There is a lot of hysteria in the media right now about the court. It is doing a lot of things that were avoided for political reasons in the past, and the reasons it isn't avoiding them now are also political. But it's not like it's operating outside of the law. For example Roe v Wade was always on shaky ground legally, it just aligned with people's (and my own) sense of morality so they liked it. If there is massive popular support for nationwide abortion legalization, Congress is free to pass that amendment, the court can't stop them. I am personally pro abortion but also pro Roe v Wade overturn because I think the rule of law is more important than any individual right. I would support an amendment on abortion, but obviously that isn't going to happen because not enough people do. > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. > Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad? It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life. The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
  - pfannkuchen 2y ago
    "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... How is that unclear?
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Here is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court: The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation. I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.