Is Judge Kozinski a Prophet?

[Sam Adams]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " [Emphasis added]

-- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

OK, here it is less than 1 year since Kozinski put these memorable words to paper in his dissent to the Silviera decision, and already we have the Fed.gov, with the cowardly SCOTUS in cahoots, silencing our right to comment about candidates in the time immediately before an election. My questions to you are:

1) When, if ever, do you think that the government will have the big brass ones to cancel an election? and

2) What happens then? For this question, I don't want blustering answers about what YOU would do, I want to know what you think would happen nationally - would we meekly accept it? Would a few folks start shooting pols and shortly thereafter be taken out in a way that deters anyone else of like mind? Would the revolt be more successful? Try to support your answers as much as possible - I want to see what's going through everyone's mind about this issue.

I await your considered responses....

 

[Daedalus]

If there ever was a president who would suspend an election, and an attorney general who would support it, and a frightened public who would support it, Bush 2008 would be it.

 

[benewton]

Daedalus

Nice slap at Bush, of course, but was there another choice?

One that could "win", of course...

We've already progressed around the toilet bowl twice, and I think that the third time's down the drain. Nor do I see enough people who'd vote for the alternative, i.e. a "winner", to change the path.

On the bright side, having none, I've no worry about "the children".

For those of you who do, I'd suggest getting organized: the Constitution no long applies.

 

[Wildalaska]

Tin hat on

WildilikereynoldswrapmyselfAlaska

 

[tyme]

Keep in mind, they don't have to cancel it. They can just postpone it indefinitely due to doubts about "fairness." The 2000 elections and the diebold fiasco should provide plenty of ammunition for anyone wishing to halt the elections. All they need to do is find an argument that convinces the courts that fairness is more important than prompt elections. I don't think that would necessarily be impossible to argue.

 

[Baba Louie]

Athens Tennessee

 

[Gordon Fink]

When, if ever, do you think that the government will have the big brass ones to cancel an election?

A.D. 2004 … 2008 … 2012 …

If we make it through the next three Presidential election cycles without this being at least attempted, I think we’ll be lucky … and safe for a little while longer.

~G. Fink

 

[Daedalus]

Imagine a terrorist WMD attack in 2007 or 2008 (I am assuming Bush rides the wars on terror and domestic conservative policy into victory in 2004). National Emergency is declared, Walton Simons is appointed to FEMA, elections are suspended until the state of war is lifted, maybe even a permanent suspension of congress. The executive branch will "need" all the tools available to prevent another attack and the public will go along with it.

Some people on The High Road gripe about it, but nothing is done. After all, who wants to resist the man who is protecting us from terrorists?

 

[Balog]

Good to hear from our resident friend of the ATF WildwouldabeenaLoyalistin1775Alaska.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

If there ever was a president who would suspend an election, and an attorney general who would support it, and a frightened public who would support it, Bush 2008 would be it.

Please. Really. If you keep this up I'm gonna have to go get the aluminum foil and start lining my helmet with it.

And I'm running low 'cause I used it as wallpaper to keep the NSA from intercepting my posts.

 

[Daedalus]

A tinfoil hat jab! How delightfully original and insightful. You are absolutely correct. The current administration which has detained an american citizen without legal counsel, whose victory in 2000 was by the slimmest of margins, and whose civil (including gun) rights record is tepid at best deserves our unconditional trust.

I will wear this tin foil crown so you do not have to.

 

[Balog]

Oh come one, any one who thinks the fed.gov could possibly overextend it's powers must be paranoid! Just like all those people think the 2'nd is about revolution instead of hunting.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose

reinforces this

where the government refuses to stand for reelection

Incumbent Protection Act of 2003 aka CFR

Incumbents already "win" over 90% of the time. And they need to stack the deck

Competion could solve the problem, if we could compete.

HOWEVER, voter apathy does play the LARGEST role.

G. Fink said

If we make it through the next three Presidential election cycles without this being at least attempted, I think we’ll be lucky … and safe for a little while longer.

referring to the "win at all costs" strategy by Gore. There is the risk that no election will be final if it is close, and if the loser has no moral character. In this case it was Gore, but it could be anyone.

It amazes me that the Sore/Loserman crowd looks back, in anger, at the "stolen" election, but fails to see the complete breakdown of the process by caused by a malcontent. We are a nation of laws, or we are nothing.

 

[Langenator]

When, if ever, do you think that the government will have the big brass ones to cancel an election?

The state of Washington has already cancelled the 2004 primary election, on the grounds that President Bush is running unopposed for his party's nomination, and the election is so late that the Democrat nomination will have already been decided.

 

[Wildalaska]

Good to hear from our resident friend of the ATF

Thanks for the compliment.

WildwouldabeenaLoyalistin1775Alaska

Somehow I fail to see the connection between my amusement at silly scenarios and being loyal to the British Crown during the American revolution.

WildenlightenmeAlaska

 

[Waitone]

NCBR attacks on major metro centers such as NYC, Boston, DC, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, L.A. or SFO within a week of a national election will do nicely.

 

[Frohickey]

Imagine a terrorist WMD attack in 2007 or 2008 (I am assuming Bush rides the wars on terror and domestic conservative policy into victory in 2004). National Emergency is declared, Walton Simons is appointed to FEMA, elections are suspended until the state of war is lifted, maybe even a permanent suspension of congress. The executive branch will "need" all the tools available to prevent another attack and the public will go along with it.

Another Deus Ex fan, I see.

Yeah, it was weird how that storyline progressed. Made it the more enjoyable.

 

[Standing Wolf]

When, if ever, do you think that the government will have the big brass ones to cancel an election?

The presidential election of 2000 was nearly stolen by Liar Gore and his assault lawyer minions.

 

[BB93YJ]

Methinks it's time to paint a rock or two...

 

[PrudentGT]

I want to know what you think would happen nationally - would we meekly accept it?

I respectfully submit one of the most well-considered responses ever written to this question:

....all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

And that, my friends, is why this nonsense will continue into the forseeable future.

 

[Dorrin79]

Walton Simons is appointed to FEMA

now that would be bad! That guy is almost unkillable (unless you just blast him with the GEP gun)



But seriously, I think the most likely case is that things continue in the same vein they have been. I can't see our government suspending elections in the near future and getting away with it.

 

[longeyes]

The shocker isn't that an Election, soon, won't take place. It's that most Americans will be fine with that, including many on this very board. It all depends on who exactly is about to take control and what the circumstances are. We have been moving, thanks to our internal schism, toward an ungovernable Union for quite a while.

 

[Mark Tyson]

They won't cancel elections, I don't think. The supreme court merely thinks some rights are essential to democracy - like speech. They don't respect the 2nd because most of them don't believe it's relevant. That's why you have some constitutional rights incorporated under the 14th amendment to the states while others are ignored.

I don't think even the most savvy and popular president could get away with cancelling elections, even in a time of crisis.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

When, if ever, do you think that the government will have the big brass ones to cancel an election?

Sounds a lot like the 2000 SCOTUS to me.

 

[Balog]

WildAlaska, let me give this a shot.

I first go on the assumption that your attitude towards politics would be basically the same then as it is today. A risky assumption I know, but if you'd grant me that I think the rest stands.

You've stated I dont view the 2nd Am as absolute. I dont think the Instant Check system is unconstituional. I dont view the ATF as jackbooted thugs. I dont think felons have a right to own firearms. I dont think that carrying a concealed handgun is a right guaranteed by the constitution.
Let's take this point by point.
The Revolution was fought over many infringements of the colonists rights, but the attempts to restrain their owning arms were IMHO the spark that set off the powder keg so to speak. Since you don't believe in an absolute right, the Brits violations of that right seems unlikely to have stirred you up enough to get involved.
You have no problem with having to get the .gov's permission to buy arms. Again, another issue critical to the Revolution you have no problem with.
You don't view an agency known to have murdered a number of American citizens as jbts, so I doubt you'd have view the Boston Massacre as the sort of thing to judge the Redcoats by.
At the time, anyone not subservient to the Crown could be declared a traitor, and thus in your view many of the Founders probably wouldn't have had a right to own arms.
Again, you've no problem demonstrating servility to the central .gov over a fundamental right.

So, judging by the only thing I can (your own statements), I think the assertion that you would most likely have been a Loyalist are justified.