If I recall correctly, only state governments are explicitly mandated to have republican forms of government. I'll admit I just want christian voice to establish a kingdom of god in the US after their coup, God-Emperor Pat Robertson for President anyone?
Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
If I recall correctly, only state governments are explicitly mandated to have republican forms of government. I'll admit I just want christian voice to establish a kingdom of god in the US after their coup, God-Emperor Pat Robertson for President anyone?
That's a pretty accurate description (I mean aside from the Manchurian occupation bit). Oh and by the way Drew, is Todor Zhivkov still in charge of Bulgaria in this TL? As a Bulgarian I am kinda curious to see how his relationship with the USSR was affected by Ryzhkov taking charge instead of Gorbachev.
Or better yet, suppose for the upcoming coup, the plotters choose none other than Rev. Presley himself as president. That way, newspapers around the world can read, RUMMY IS DEAD: LONG LIVE THE KING!
I thought that was Tobin Wolf?
Given that the United States is already becoming an economic basketcase on the international stage, I wonder if U.S. companies will still be dominant in the decades to come. In other words, will McDonalds, Burger King and Starbucks never make it out of North America. Not to mention the fact that Ford, GM, and Chrystler will not be the titans of world streets that they once were. Even Coca Cola had trouble during the Agnew years due the European rival of "Europeace Cola."
I think that the Japanese Invasion (of businesses) will come later, with much more force, due to the collapse of American businesses, and the more aggressive, militarized climate in Japan. Maybe Japanese companies will begin buying out major American companies
The choice is mainly symbolic.
Hawaii was an independent Kingdom (at least legally) before it was forcibly annexed by the U.S., so the choice of a Kingdom hearkens back to an earlier Hawaiian sovereign existence as the legal basis for their claim of secession (unlike California which has just made their state government and state constitution a sovereign national one by declaration, using the South Carolina precedent). The new King has agreed to be a figurehead, and would most likely abdicate in favour of a republican constitutional government at some future date, once Hawaii holds a constitutional convention to determine the form of its more permanent new government.
New York and the northeast meanwhile are breathing new life into the idea of nullification. I would think that in a post-Rumsfeldia world the term "States-rights" will take-on a whole new legal (and moral) meaning, as distinct from the Jim Crow legacy.
In terms of the continued existence of "the United States", that doesn't mean a future United States necessarily contains all of the territory it held pre-Rumsfeld. Modern Germany is smaller than its pre-war Imperial ancestor. The United Kingdom once included all of Ireland (and other parts of the globe now independent). Modern Poland is not the same as pre-1939 Poland. Austria still exists, but not with the same territorial expanse as the Austrian Empire. A name can continue, but not necessarily all of the same area as before.
I see. Is it possible that the Convention could decide to keep the Kingdom?
With the constitution mandating the states have republican governments, interestingly, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that section of Article Four is not under their purview. Using the precedent of Luther v. Borden, it could be inferred that as long as the President and Congress do not act to prevent a state from enacting a non-republican government, it is constitutional.
DTanza
Banned
Hence why I pointed out that it would basically just be a military union with a joint head of state while both sides more or less have their own local political system, laws, and representatives.
Reading comprehension.
After doing some more speculation, I pictured an even more terrifying prospect in the event that the Evangelical Coup fails. Rumsfeld surrounded himself with the Christian Voice people under the theory that their faith would ensure that they would never deviate from the free market ideal and never conspire against him. If the coup fails (which it probably will) and Rumsfeld purges the leadership a second time, I can see him turning towards the only remaining "reliable" source for the various department heads: the Liberty Battalions. This is particularly frightening as there appears to be a criminal element growing in the ranks according to the TRW Chairman. Note that these people's dislike for government is driven not so much by libertarian ideals of freedom or the idea that less regulation will lead to a better economy but a rejection of all morals, law and order!
The problem solves practically itself with the Liberty Battalions ending up killing each other due to their own self-defeating nature.
So this is like a pointless question but I only ask to very picture everything. What kind of uniforms are the Liberty Battalions wearing? Are they dressed similarly to the regular army like the IOTL Revolutionary Guard or something more distinctive and perhaps more looking like something for a parade ala the SA uniforms?
It occurs to me that the Lost Cause will end up a lot stronger ITTL- with the actual example of a tyrannical federal government, there will be those who argue that the CSA was a (sadly racist, but 'not as bad as some liberals say') attempt to deal with the fundamental rot in the constitution, et cetera.
Nasty thought.
Nasty thought.
I kinda get the impression South Africa's going to kill any attempt at redeeming the Confederacy if only because of the fact that Malan is effectively going to nuke the bejeezus out of Africa. That, and because of the US government supporting Malan's regime, you might see questions arise as to whether or not a theoretical surviving Confederacy would've gone down the same path as Malan.
- Status