Could a Coup be successful in the US?

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

If we have the Military do that the Constitution is thereafter meaningless.

Yeah, but if we're in the situation where its meaningless as is; better to stop what's happening and hope we can get back to the way things were rather than let it keep going. 

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yeah, but if we're in the situation where its meaningless as is; better to stop what's happening and hope we can get back to the way things were rather than let it keep going. 

You will never get things back to the way they were after that because you will have established that the military is the final arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. The Constitution has several checks and balances on the power of any branch of government, but this is most certainly not one of them.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You will never get things back to the way they were after that because you will have established that the military is the final arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. The Constitution has several checks and balances on the power of any branch of government, but this is most certainly not one of them.

I understand that. But better to have a facade than a President who is literally rounding up groups of people and suppressing all sorts of rights, becoming a dictator, doing violence to the populace, etc.

I don't actually think Trump would do that. But if he did...

[Guess who's back]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

I understand that. But better to have a facade than a President who is literally rounding up groups of people and suppressing all sorts of rights, becoming a dictator, doing violence to the populace, etc.

I don't actually think Trump would do that. But if he did...

President can be impeached legally for such things.

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

President can be impeached legally for such things.

 

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Generally, no. But in the specific, unlikely case where President Trump is acting extremely illegally and is ignoring Supreme Court orders to stop, and Congress is refusing to impeach him and his Vice President and cabinet are his sycophants, something needs to be the guardian of the Constitution. And I think I'd take a military coup over a civil war caused by states nullifying federal laws and regulations enacted by Trump. So long as new elections were held within, say, three months.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

39 minutes ago, Guess who's back said:

President can be impeached legally for such things.

GWB,

In fairness to Fez when FDR was literally rounding up American citizens were there any calls for him to be removed from office for his actions?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

If we have the Military do that the Constitution is thereafter meaningless.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that under the scenario Fez laid out that the Constitution would have already been rendered meaningless? 

[Dinsdale!]

I think a coup would be unsuccessful. In Mexico Santa Ana organized a military coup. Half the country seceded, though only Texas maintained its independence. I expect the same would happen in the US. Throw in the wild card of huge military commands located in foreign countries - if all were not part of the coup, they would return home and start a civil war or perhaps a world war. It'd be akin to the late Republic period of the Roman Empire. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tywin,

Perhaps.  But, again, given the decentralized nature of US governance an attempt to stop the existing government with the military is unlikely to end well and is likely to lead to civil war.  True civil war for the control of the whole country.

[Dinsdale!]

Apparently North Carolina had a coup in 1898. Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898

[peterbound]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Generally, no. But in the specific, unlikely case where President Trump is acting extremely illegally and is ignoring Supreme Court orders to stop, and Congress is refusing to impeach him and his Vice President and cabinet are his sycophants, something needs to be the guardian of the Constitution. And I think I'd take a military coup over a civil war caused by states nullifying federal laws and regulations enacted by Trump. So long as new elections were held within, say, three months.

Big assumption that the military and it's commanders wouldn't be on the side of trump.  You underestimate the strong conservative leanings of the military and all it's branches. Hell, the guy that punched the protester in Tucson was an Air Force active duty cop.  You're talking about a bunch of people that have.....different.... experiences with the islamic faith, feel ostracized and let down by the public at large, and the are part of a group that is continuing to grow apart from the people they fell they fight for.  If anything, the military moving against the other parts of the government behind a strong military vision is more likely than a civilian leader (one who has more than likely never served in the military and one that has probably earned the distain or disgust from those serving). 

[peterbound]

Actually, the more that I think about it, and the more and more the separation between those in power and the military continues, the more likely a strong military uprising becomes a reality. 

[Swordfish]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

Perhaps.  But, again, given the decentralized nature of US governance an attempt to stop the existing government with the military is unlikely to end well and is likely to lead to civil war.  True civil war for the control of the whole country.

If it were to happen, it would be as much a media event as a direct military coup.

there are probably ways in which it could be done.  FEMA, Emergency powers, Martial law, etc.....  but they'd have to spin the fuck out of it in ways that make it essentially impossible, and a lot of the executive branch would need to be colluding.

[Altherion]

46 minutes ago, peterbound said:

Actually, the more that I think about it, and the more and more the separation between those in power and the military continues, the more likely a strong military uprising becomes a reality. 

There's a long article on Salon today about a similar topic. Here's the conclusion:

Quote

A military force effectively unaccountable to the people tears at the very fabric of the Constitution, which is at pains to mandate firm and complete control over the military by Congress, acting in the people’s name. Combine such a military with a range of undeclared wars and other conflicts and a Congress for which cheerleading, not control, is the order of the day, and you have a recipe for a force unto itself.

It used to be said of Prussia that it was a military with a state attached to it.  America’s post-democratic military, combined with the proliferation of intelligence outfits and the growth of the country’s second defense department, the Department of Homeland Security, could increasingly be considered something like an emerging proto-state.  Call it America’s 51st state, except that instead of having two senators and a few representatives based on its size, it has all the senators and all the representatives based on its power, budget, and grip on American culture.

It is, in other words, a post-democratic leviathan to be reckoned with.  And not a single Democratic or Republican candidate for commander-in-chief has spent a day in uniform.  Prediction for November: another overwhelming victory at the polls for America’s 51st state.

The author doesn't actually consider a coup, but there is no reason it doesn't follow from the same features.

[Darzin]

I think it's impossible without bloodshed. The governors of states command the national guard, If there ever was a coup depending on it's political persuasion the very conservative or very liberal states would rise in rebellion, or just succeed. If it actually happened I could actually see the US falling apart like the Soviet Union did.  

+

[Jaxom 1974]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you're a fan of conspiracy theories (I'm not) then we've had at least 2 in the last 53 years. 

Wait.  Kennedy and...? I'm blanking on the other possibility. 

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fez,

If we have the Military do that the Constitution is thereafter meaningless.

Well...you've been wanting to rewrite some of it anyway, right?  Here's the chance...

[The Anti-Targ]

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, no way.

More generally (not specific to the USA) I think in pretty much every modern democracy that is used to having robust and free political debate and regular elections relatively free from corruption since at least WWII a proper military coup that sets up an undemocratic military government is a virtual impossibility. There is simply far too much pro-democracy inertia both within the govt bureaucracy and among the people for a coup to actually seize power. The greatest defence against a coup is a politically aware populace. Even if that populace is relatively politically apathetic, they are normally only apathetic because they are comfortable with the democratic status quo. Upset the status quo and they soon lose their apathy.

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

More generally (not specific to the USA) I think in pretty much every modern democracy that is used to having robust and free political debate and regular elections relatively free from corruption since at least WWII a proper military coup that sets up an undemocratic military government is a virtual impossibility. There is simply far too much pro-democracy inertia both within the govt bureaucracy and among the people for a coup to actually seize power. 

Salvador Allende would be delighted to hear that. 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Salvador Allende would be delighted to hear that. 

Your referring back over 40 years tends to support my thesis in a contemporary context. Chile is not immune to a coup even today because of its history. But give it another decade or 2 of stable democracy and it will become so.

[The Marquis de Leech]

27 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Your referring back over 40 years tends to support my thesis in a contemporary context. Chile is not immune to a coup even today because of its history. But give it another decade or 2 of stable democracy and it will become so.

Pre-Pinochet, Chile was one of the most stable democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Point is, democratic traditions aren't a barrier to military coups under certain circumstances (in this case, chronic interference from another country).