This is topic A question about America. in forum Ask a Geek! at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001448

Posted by Too Cool To Quit (Member # 2217) on September 01, 2004, 21:53:
 
While I was outside tonight I started thinking about the civil war, and I'm not sure why. Anyway, this question was brought to my mind, I tried to word it as best as I could to get the proper effect. And don't worry, this isn't one of those posts were some one posts a question then when you've answered or sweared them out from under their bridge and then says it was just a joke or that they already knew the answer. This is a serious question, that needs a serious answer.

What if perhaps one day a large group of America citizens decided that they didn't like the way the government was being ran, perhaps due to things such as the PATRIOT act which takes away a good deal of the privacy that American citizens are or were once supposedly given, and formed a militia and decided to take up and bear arms and contrived a plan to over throw the government? Would the countless military and civilian casualties be seen lawfully as murder? Or, would it be seen as a form of terrorism in this day and age?

Constitutionally speaking I believe that they would not be seen as murder. I think that the right to keep and bear arms, and the freedom of speech, and also the right to form a militia very similarly to the way the south did back in February 1861. But then again, the constitution doesn't stand for much these days and it would probably end up looking more like the last possibility would be more likely.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on September 01, 2004, 22:10:
 
Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more

My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars


From "Civil War", by Guns N Roses
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 01, 2004, 23:09:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Too Cool To Quit:
What if perhaps one day a large group of America citizens decided that they didn't like the way the government was being ran, perhaps due to things such as the PATRIOT act which takes away a good deal of the privacy that American citizens are or were once supposedly given, and formed a militia and decided to take up and bear arms and contrived a plan to over throw the government? Would the countless military and civilian casualties be seen lawfully as murder? Or, would it be seen as a form of terrorism in this day and age?

Depends who wins.

"Treason never prospers, for if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason" - Shakespeare - Richard III

[edit] something was bothering me about that quote, and I couldn't think what, so I looked it up. The problem was that it's supposed to rhyme.
The correct quote is
Treason never prospers: what's the reason?
For if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason!

 
Posted by fishd (Member # 2416) on September 02, 2004, 02:20:
 
I think the big problem with this is now the USA is so large and has a single military force lead (in theory) by one man.

I'll admit to not knowing a lot about American history but I bet the whole "right to arm bears" and "me and me boys'll get together and whup yo ass" things came from a time when there were much smaller and more individual armies, perhaps responsible to a state or even the local landowner, that way a small "government" could be overthrown quite easily.

I bet in this day and age any sort of large force gathering to overthrow the government would be quickly put down by local law enforcement/national guard/regular military (unless the George W. did something *really* bad). Possible united nations involvement too?

I think the days of the people overthrowing the nasty goverment are long gone... sadly, I wish someone would overthrow ours! [shake head]


p.s. TFD, that's deep man! [Smile]
 
Posted by fishd (Member # 2416) on September 02, 2004, 02:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by fishd:
I think the big problem with this is now the USA is so large

Um, obviously America the landmass has pretty much been always the same size geographically, what I meant was "now the government governs the whole of the USA rather than individual states" kinda thing...

Anyhoo... where's my coffee... [blush]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on September 02, 2004, 04:33:
 
What TFD said. Plus this: if you want to get rid of a bad government, that's what elections are for. And if a new government acts so badly it needs to be removed quick, there's impeachment. But civil war in a stable, democratic country is the dumbest thing I could think of.
 
Posted by ooby (Member # 2603) on September 02, 2004, 05:55:
 
Impeachment doesn't remove one from office (Bill Clinton was impeached).

You might want to check out Retro vs Metro. It's a book that discusses America as two different countries with different views and economies.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 02, 2004, 06:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ooby:
Impeachment doesn't remove one from office (Bill Clinton was impeached).

Um, no he wasn't.
 
Posted by Bibo (Member # 1959) on September 02, 2004, 06:35:
 
Gotta love it when a non-US citizen knows more than an actual US citizen. "Public Schools, Your Tax dollars at work!" [shake head]
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on September 02, 2004, 07:58:
 
Clinton definitely was not impeached. And if memory serves me right there hasn't been an impeachement in the last century at least.

And in all truth my mom knows more about the history and the processes of the gov't than I do. She learned everything in her citizenship classes (Korean). The immigrants know more than the natives here.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on September 02, 2004, 08:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
Clinton definitely was not impeached. And if memory serves me right there hasn't been an impeachement in the last century at least.

And in all truth my mom knows more about the history and the processes of the gov't than I do. She learned everything in her citizenship classes (Korean). The immigrants know more than the natives here.

Clinton most definitely *was* impeached. He just didn't wasn't forced out of his job, and didn't resign.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on September 02, 2004, 08:05:
 
I believe Nixon was impeached. Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings but was acquitted.
 
Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on September 02, 2004, 08:10:
 
Nixon faced impeachement, but resigned beforehand, Bill was impeached, but continued as president.

Nuff said!
 
Posted by MacManKrisK (Member # 955) on September 02, 2004, 08:12:
 
Nixon was *not* impeached. However, the impeachment process was quite well underway when he decided to resign. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 02, 2004, 08:30:
 
You couldn't get the people of today to create a civil war unless you took away their TV sets, computers, video games, movies, cell phones, pagers, gas guzzling SUVs and crappy music. The American people didn't have as much to pull their attention away from reality back in the 19th century. Now there's such an information overload, such as internet news and cable news channels that give us information immediately, that people tend to tune much of it out. Not to mention the hypocrisy and lies that are thrown at us constantly by all sides of the political spectrum. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who knows? Who cares?
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on September 02, 2004, 08:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
... if you want to get rid of a bad government, that's what elections are for...

Um, remember 2000....Bush actually lost that election but is still somehow Prez
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on September 02, 2004, 08:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
You couldn't get the people of today to create a civil war unless you took away their TV sets, computers, video games, movies, cell phones, pagers, gas guzzling SUVs and crappy music.

My uncle said this during the years before his death: The way to cripple America is to cut the electricity. Turn off the power and America can't function anymore.
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on September 02, 2004, 09:10:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
You couldn't get the people of today to create a civil war unless you took away their TV sets, computers, video games, movies, cell phones, pagers, gas guzzling SUVs and crappy music.

My uncle said this during the years before his death: The way to cripple America is to cut the electricity. Turn off the power and America can't function anymore.
Well, it somehow happened last year in the Northeast part of America. Life went on without any revolution, except that people had to trust each other for a change. Remember those people in New York who had to sleep on the street 'cause their hotel went too hot? And no one was killed or robbed, too!

And many (me among them) had an extra paid vacation! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 02, 2004, 16:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
You couldn't get the people of today to create a civil war unless you took away their TV sets, computers, video games, movies, cell phones, pagers, gas guzzling SUVs and crappy music.

Oh, I dunno about that.
Came pretty close in the south in the 1960s, when they started letting black kids into the nice schools. State troopers turned out to prevent Supreme Court rulings being implimented, federal forces turned out to enforce them, could have turned nasty very quickly.
 
Posted by Tut-an-Geek (Member # 1234) on September 02, 2004, 16:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snaggy:
Nixon faced impeachement, but resigned beforehand, Bill was impeached, but continued as president.

Nuff said!

Technically, yes, Bill was impeached, in that the House found there to be enough evidence to conduct an investigation, however, the Senate found Bill NOT guilty (55v45 if I recall) of his crimes that led to impeachment.

Under the same technicality, Nixon was impeached too, in that he didn't resign until after the House decided to conduct the investigation (two weeks after), but before it was tried in the Senate.

quote:
And if memory serves me right there hasn't been an impeachement in the last century at least.

In addition to the two above, 7 US District court judges were impeached, and one US commerce court judge.

(Sources: PBS' NewsHour and my Civics class [Wink] )
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 02, 2004, 20:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Oh, I dunno about that.
Came pretty close in the south in the 1960s, when they started letting black kids into the nice schools. State troopers turned out to prevent Supreme Court rulings being implimented, federal forces turned out to enforce them, could have turned nasty very quickly.

Things have changed in forty years.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on September 02, 2004, 21:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Oh, I dunno about that.
Came pretty close in the south in the 1960s, when they started letting black kids into the nice schools. State troopers turned out to prevent Supreme Court rulings being implimented, federal forces turned out to enforce them, could have turned nasty very quickly.

Things have changed in forty years.
/me thinks back to that trip to Stone Mountain, GA.

Not as much as you might think. [Frown]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on September 02, 2004, 21:50:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
My uncle said this during the years before his death: The way to cripple America is to cut the electricity. Turn off the power and America can't function anymore.

That's true for any developed country. Sort of. As Stereo pointed out, no rioting occurred in the blackout last summer. Massive confusion, but no one got hurt.
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on September 02, 2004, 21:52:
 
Just to clear things up:

impeachment: (1) The process of calling something into question, as in "impeaching the testimony of a witness." (2) The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.

from the us department of justice web page

Impeachment has nothing to do with removal from office, its just the official bringing about of charges.
 
Posted by chromatic (Member # 164) on September 05, 2004, 10:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Um, remember 2000....Bush actually lost that election but is still somehow Prez

The Electoral College is older than you are; you should look into it sometime.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on September 05, 2004, 12:34:
 
Bush lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College...but by some very suspicious means. Electors are decided by the popular vote in each state, and each state has a certain number of Electors according to its population. In 2000, Florida had the deciding number of Electors, and at first glance the popular vote went to Bush. However, there were some technical difficulites with the way those votes were counted, and also with how voter eligibility was decided. A recount was demanded, and then halted by order of the Supreme Court. An unofficial recount was still carried out for research purposes, and sometime in the winter of '00 and '01 it was very quietly announced that Gore had won the popular vote in Florida by the slimmest margin imaginable. To the further annoyance of many, Bush marched into the oval Office acting like he'd been given a mandate, which, in an election as close and fscked up as his, he most certainly did not have, and then turned oput to be much more of a hardline conservative than people expected (which is why Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party and became an Independent).

On an interesting side note, while the Electoral College itslef is laid out by the constitution, the methods by which Electors are appointed is not. In this day and age, every state assigns its Electors to vote for the leading cnadidate in the state. In the past, it was more of a mix. Some states assigned Electors proportionately to the percentage of people who voted for each candidate, while others had their legislatures tell the Electors what to do (which probably went over like a lead balloon with the public). Not sure when it changed, but my state, CO, is looking to change their system of appointing Electors back to the more proportional method. Neither the Dems nor the GOP are particularily thrilled with this plan, but it's a public referendum on the ballot this November. And the politics involved are not something I really care to go into.

One last note: the Electoral College has nothing to do with elections on the state level. Senators and Congressmen are appointed by straight up popular vote (though Senators used to be appointed by the state legislatures).

All that said, I'm going to vote Novemebr 3rd, but I'm not looking forward to it.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 05, 2004, 13:29:
 
It's kind of ironic that the last time an election was contested and decided in the Supreme Court (or was the House of Representatives?) was between Samuel Tilden and Benjamin Harrison. Tilden should have actually won, but Harrison became president after making some deals. Immediately after the election, Resconstruction was ended and all Northern troops were pulled out of the South, leaving them free to enact Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and other discriminatory legislation. Makes me wonder what kind of deal Bush made.
 
Posted by Tut-an-Geek (Member # 1234) on September 05, 2004, 23:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
It's kind of ironic that the last time an election was contested and decided in the Supreme Court (or was the House of Representatives?) was between Samuel Tilden and Benjamin Harrison. Tilden should have actually won, but Harrison became president after making some deals. Immediately after the election, Resconstruction was ended and all Northern troops were pulled out of the South, leaving them free to enact Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and other discriminatory legislation. Makes me wonder what kind of deal Bush made.

are you sure you don't mean rutherford b hayes vs. sam tilden (1876)?
 
Posted by SpikeSpiegel (Member # 1452) on September 06, 2004, 05:21:
 
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 06, 2004, 06:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tut-an-Geek:
are you sure you don't mean rutherford b hayes vs. sam tilden (1876)?

Uh, yeah. I'm too lazy to Google. [Wink]
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on September 06, 2004, 06:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?

Yeah, because JFK's former bootlegging father's connections.
 
Posted by The-Tech (Member # 2506) on September 06, 2004, 09:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?

Yeah, because JFK's former bootlegging father's connections.
Yeah something about JFK getting 100% of the deceased voters in Illinois
 
Posted by The-Tech (Member # 2506) on September 06, 2004, 13:53:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Bush lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College...but by some very suspicious means. Electors are decided by the popular vote in each state, and each state has a certain number of Electors according to its population. In 2000, Florida had the deciding number of Electors, and at first glance the popular vote went to Bush. However, there were some technical difficulites with the way those votes were counted, and also with how voter eligibility was decided. A recount was demanded, and then halted by order of the Supreme Court. An unofficial recount was still carried out for research purposes, and sometime in the winter of '00 and '01 it was very quietly announced that Gore had won the popular vote in Florida by the slimmest margin imaginable.

Even if the recount was continued Bush would have won. The recount was only a partial recount. The only way Gore could have won Florida was by a state wide recount which he did not request. So dependining on which recount you're talking about gives a different winner. As it stands though the recount stopped by the Supreme Court would have shown GW as the winner. Futher info here

Florida recount tallies released


quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:

To the further annoyance of many, Bush marched into the oval Office acting like he'd been given a mandate, which, in an election as close and fscked up as his, he most certainly did not have, and then turned oput to be much more of a hardline conservative than people expected (which is why Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party and became an Independent).

The unmitigated gaul of this administration is legendary that's for sure

quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
All that said, I'm going to vote Novemebr 3rd, but I'm not looking forward to it.

Not having the luxury of being from a swing state I don't even get pandered to. I can't even vote by who has the best mud slinging campaign.
 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0