Full Version: A strange political scenario
I'd like to present an imaginary political scenario:
It is 2009. President Hillary Clinton has taken office, and the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats. President Clinton begins sending judicial appointments to the Senate, and the Democrats, invoking the Frist Nuclear Option, shut down all filibusters and ram the President's appointments through. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
In this superheated atmosphere, a car bomb kills a Democratic Senator and maims two others. Outraged, the President declares that "terrorism of any form will not be tolerated!" and obtains passage of the Domestic Patriot Act from Congress. Under this act, all individuals and organizations associated with right to life activities or who have expressed antipathy to gays are closely monitored. The FBI is authorized to search the homes of such conservatives based on suspicious political commentary they have made in emails or on blogs. Anyone with any connection to any violent right-to-life group can be held for questioning for up to 48 hours without access to an attorney. A number of the more outspoken leaders of fundamentalist congregations are arrested and held without charge. The ACLU mounts legal challenges, but the Supreme Court defers to the Executive Branch in this time of national crisis. All perfectly legal.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
The question for debate is:
Is this scenario perfectly legal?
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
It is 2009. President Hillary Clinton has taken office, and the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats. President Clinton begins sending judicial appointments to the Senate, and the Democrats, invoking the Frist Nuclear Option, shut down all filibusters and ram the President's appointments through. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
In this superheated atmosphere, a car bomb kills a Democratic Senator and maims two others. Outraged, the President declares that "terrorism of any form will not be tolerated!" and obtains passage of the Domestic Patriot Act from Congress. Under this act, all individuals and organizations associated with right to life activities or who have expressed antipathy to gays are closely monitored. The FBI is authorized to search the homes of such conservatives based on suspicious political commentary they have made in emails or on blogs. Anyone with any connection to any violent right-to-life group can be held for questioning for up to 48 hours without access to an attorney. A number of the more outspoken leaders of fundamentalist congregations are arrested and held without charge. The ACLU mounts legal challenges, but the Supreme Court defers to the Executive Branch in this time of national crisis. All perfectly legal.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
The question for debate is:
Is this scenario perfectly legal?
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
Is this scenario perfectly legal?
One would have to be a lawyer, perhaps a civil rights specialist, to give a definitive answer.
My guess is that up to this point it is legal. Although legal, the court packing item probably isn’t plausible and, in my opinion, isn't desirable. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried it and failed, so we have a historical precedent. I don't like court tampering whether it's packing the court or requiring super majorities. I also have a firm belief in use of legal precedent. I would suggest that my view of this is within the best of consevative thought.
At this point we have problems. Christian fundamentalists like Paul Hill need to be punished, but any wholesale curtailing of first amendment and due process provisions should and might be met with actual resistance. We can only push people so far. Such civil rights abuses would only strengthen the para military groups in certain parts of the country.
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
This may be a plausible projection, but I think our history and traditions would stop such actions before they got to that point.
Despite my dislike of our current regime, I do have some faith in the system, if not the persons temporarily in charge of the system. Bush, Frist, Hastert, DeLay and the current crowd are much like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton--just sort of penciled in. The current crop of Democrats aren't permanent--not even Senator Robert Byrd.
Now, where did I put that eraser. 
One would have to be a lawyer, perhaps a civil rights specialist, to give a definitive answer.
QUOTE
It is 2009. President Hillary Clinton has taken office, and the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats. President Clinton begins sending judicial appointments to the Senate, and the Democrats, invoking the Frist Nuclear Option, shut down all filibusters and ram the President's appointments through. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
My guess is that up to this point it is legal. Although legal, the court packing item probably isn’t plausible and, in my opinion, isn't desirable. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried it and failed, so we have a historical precedent. I don't like court tampering whether it's packing the court or requiring super majorities. I also have a firm belief in use of legal precedent. I would suggest that my view of this is within the best of consevative thought.
QUOTE
In this superheated atmosphere, a car bomb kills a Democratic Senator and maims two others. Outraged, the President declares that "terrorism of any form will not be tolerated!" and obtains passage of the Domestic Patriot Act from Congress. Under this act, all individuals and organizations associated with right to life activities or who have expressed antipathy to gays are closely monitored. The FBI is authorized to search the homes of such conservatives based on suspicious political commentary they have made in emails or on blogs. Anyone with any connection to any violent right-to-life group can be held for questioning for up to 48 hours without access to an attorney. A number of the more outspoken leaders of fundamentalist congregations are arrested and held without charge. The ACLU mounts legal challenges, but the Supreme Court defers to the Executive Branch in this time of national crisis. All perfectly legal.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
At this point we have problems. Christian fundamentalists like Paul Hill need to be punished, but any wholesale curtailing of first amendment and due process provisions should and might be met with actual resistance. We can only push people so far. Such civil rights abuses would only strengthen the para military groups in certain parts of the country.
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
This may be a plausible projection, but I think our history and traditions would stop such actions before they got to that point.
Despite my dislike of our current regime, I do have some faith in the system, if not the persons temporarily in charge of the system. Bush, Frist, Hastert, DeLay and the current crowd are much like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton--just sort of penciled in. The current crop of Democrats aren't permanent--not even Senator Robert Byrd.
Now, where did I put that eraser.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ May 25 2005, 01:25 AM)
I'd like to present an imaginary political scenario:
It is 2009. President Hillary Clinton has taken office, and the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats. President Clinton begins sending judicial appointments to the Senate, and the Democrats, invoking the Frist Nuclear Option, shut down all filibusters and ram the President's appointments through. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
In this superheated atmosphere, a car bomb kills a Democratic Senator and maims two others. Outraged, the President declares that "terrorism of any form will not be tolerated!" and obtains passage of the Domestic Patriot Act from Congress. Under this act, all individuals and organizations associated with right to life activities or who have expressed antipathy to gays are closely monitored. The FBI is authorized to search the homes of such conservatives based on suspicious political commentary they have made in emails or on blogs. Anyone with any connection to any violent right-to-life group can be held for questioning for up to 48 hours without access to an attorney. A number of the more outspoken leaders of fundamentalist congregations are arrested and held without charge. The ACLU mounts legal challenges, but the Supreme Court defers to the Executive Branch in this time of national crisis. All perfectly legal.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
The question for debate is:
Is this scenario perfectly legal?
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
It is 2009. President Hillary Clinton has taken office, and the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats. President Clinton begins sending judicial appointments to the Senate, and the Democrats, invoking the Frist Nuclear Option, shut down all filibusters and ram the President's appointments through. All perfectly legal.
President Clinton also offers her health care plan. It sweeps through the House easily, and Senate Republicans start a filibuster. Citing the Frist Nuclear Option, Democrats change the rules to prevent all filibusters. The Republicans attempt to shut down the Senate and the Democrats, citing the need to keep the government operating, change the rules to overrule all Republican obstructionist tactics. The House Republicans attempt similar measures and are similarly ruled out of order. It's all perfectly legal.
The Democrats pass a bill making abortion on demand legal throughout the USA, and another bill making gay marriage legal throughout the USA. The hard right goes nuts. There are demonstrations and marches. There are also bombings of abortion clinics and gay bars. The Supreme Court declares these laws unconstitutional. The Democrats expand the size of the Court to 13 seats and add four new justices who now reverse the previous rulings. All perfectly legal.
In this superheated atmosphere, a car bomb kills a Democratic Senator and maims two others. Outraged, the President declares that "terrorism of any form will not be tolerated!" and obtains passage of the Domestic Patriot Act from Congress. Under this act, all individuals and organizations associated with right to life activities or who have expressed antipathy to gays are closely monitored. The FBI is authorized to search the homes of such conservatives based on suspicious political commentary they have made in emails or on blogs. Anyone with any connection to any violent right-to-life group can be held for questioning for up to 48 hours without access to an attorney. A number of the more outspoken leaders of fundamentalist congregations are arrested and held without charge. The ACLU mounts legal challenges, but the Supreme Court defers to the Executive Branch in this time of national crisis. All perfectly legal.
Congress begins investigations into "domestic terrorist" contributions to political campaigns. Lo and behold, a great many Republicans are found to have accepted contributions from organizations now listed as "domestic terrorist organizations". Under intense public grilling, many of these Republicans are shown to have had close ties with some of these domestic terrorist organizations. Congress therefore passes a bill criminalizing any financial connection with these organizations. Many Republicans lose re-election because of the investigations; later, others are jailed when complex schemes are discovered that funneled money through intermediaries to the Republican politicians. All perfectly legal.
In the 2012 elections, Democrats sweep away most of the remaining Republicans. The nation stands united against the fundamentalist Christian terrorists, many of whom are now safely held in jail.
The question for debate is:
Is this scenario perfectly legal?
Does it not represent a plausible projection of current trends initiated by the Republicans?
The premise of this post is absurd. It reads like a chapter from a left-wing version of the "Turner Diaries".
Does this represent a plausible projection of current trends? Not to a rational and sane person. What seems to be forgotten conveniently is that the "Patriot Act" was passed with broad BIPARTISAN support. John Kerry and John Edwards both voted YES when they had their chance to vote up or down for this legislation in the Senate.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ May 25 2005, 01:12 AM)
The premise of this post is absurd. It reads like a chapter from a left-wing version of the "Turner Diaries".
Does this represent a plausible projection of current trends? Not to a rational and sane person.
Does this represent a plausible projection of current trends? Not to a rational and sane person.
You may be correct lordhelmet, but isn't it even remotely possible for you to answer a couple of question without pontificating on who is or is not "sane." As far as I know, you are not a M.D or D.O. psyhiatrist or a Ph.D. psychologist (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong
)so you have no credentials for making such a diagnosis.Was Sinclair Lewis "rational and sane" when he wrote It Can't Happen Here?
QUOTE(BoF @ May 25 2005, 03:27 AM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ May 25 2005, 01:12 AM)
The premise of this post is absurd. It reads like a chapter from a left-wing version of the "Turner Diaries".
Does this represent a plausible projection of current trends? Not to a rational and sane person.
Does this represent a plausible projection of current trends? Not to a rational and sane person.
You may be correct lordhelmet, but isn't it even remotely possible for you to answer a couple of question without pontificating on who is or is not "sane." As far as I know, you are not a M.D or D.O. psyhiatrist or a Ph.D. psychologist (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong
)so you have no credentials for making such a diagnosis.Was Sinclair Lewis "rational and sane" when he wrote It Can't Happen Here?
I answered the question and did not characterize any specific individual. The scenario is not plausible. It's absurd as I mentioned. The entire premise of it is wrong.
Topic closed...
Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing. America's Debate does not host debates based on "What if..." scenarios.
Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.
Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.