|
xssve -> RE: Race, Ethnicity, Language and Guilt - Take II (10/9/2011 8:00:51 AM)
|
As I say it is an imperfect world, and none of the scenarios you present are strictly speaking, impossible - but the US system is designed from the ground up on the observation that all political power ultimately derives from the consent of the governed: from the DoI:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This is not just a political construct, it's an evolutionary fact: it works no different among a troop of Chimpanzees, or Baboons, or a herd of Elk, all organisms are essentially independent, we group togehther nad cooperae for the sake of mutual survival, "group fitness", which is essentially a vehicle, like a bus, we're all riding on - somebody has to drive, but if the driver is blind or mad, there is nothing that says we can't get off that bus and catch the next one.
There is no other politicla authority other than the constitution, all political office, and all related political power is derived from the constitution, so nullify the constitution, and there is no such thing as revolt against proper authority, because proper authority, derived solely from the constitution, no longer exists - kind of a catch 22 there.
Thus, as a hypothetical, if say Romney were elected and attempted to establish a theocratic regime, it would violate a fundamental constitutional principle, and effectively abrogate his authority as president, derived from that constitution, and could be removed by whatever means necessary and nobody could call that insurrection, because it's a nation governed by law, not individual whim, no matter how popular it is.
At best, it would be a new regime, dependent on how much force could be mustered to defend it - in such regimes, their power derives from violence, but it's still consensus, i.e., a minority consensus has to be able to muster enough force, through consensus - though that can mean hiring mercenaries - to suppress any attempt to dislodge it. Not at all uncommon, we call those dictatorships, juntas, etc, Saddam Hussein, etc., but they tend to be unstable, and often end themselves in violence.
Not too many of the Roman Emperors died natural deaths, and most such rulers, as a practical matter, have only lasted to the extent they made social justice a priority - since, in a system of haves and have nots, the have nots are always going to numerically outnumber the haves, and ultimately form the broadest consensus - the French revolution, the American revolution, the Libyan revolution, etc., there is an evolutionary algorithm at work here.
|
|
|
|
