Would a WMD attack destroy the US Constitution?

[Dis]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I seriously doubt that's true. Soldiers are indoctrinated to follow orders, and besides, those who want to suspend the Constitution would find some trumped up "Constitutional" way to do so.

bull**** of course.

I knew when I swore my oath, that I was swearing to the constitution not some stupid president. You underestimate the intelligence of people in the military. The military would be having deserters all over the place. Hell, most people in the navy and air force aren't in the military for any kind of patriotic reason. They are in there because it is a job, and they get job training.

Only the least intelligent and most patriotic service would retain any semblance of a military- the U.S. Marines

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TheStinger
If it it exploded near it, certainly.

I knew I was going to be way too late with this, so I didn't bother.

[POTUS]

The Constitution wouldn't end, it would just be warped into something that George Washington wouldn't recognize, eventually becoming so unused that no one cared about it.

[Dis]

it already is that way

as for the paper itself. It would certainly be destroyed.

What you guys don't realise about Hiroshima is that even though the stone buildings remained. Everything that can burn inside them did burn. And yes paper can burn. A nuke blast sends a firestorm that envelopes everything. Sure empty shells remain. But everything inside those shells is burned beyond recognition.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by POTUS
The Constitution wouldn't end, it would just be warped into something that George Washington wouldn't recognize, eventually becoming so unused that no one cared about it.

[HershOstropoler]

No one would formally repeal or suspend the US constitution. What for? Just creates emotional distress among the peasants. Way easier to further strengthen the oligarchic and authoritarian elements of the political system.

What will happen to all the TV news networks, for example? All news will be FOX news.

[Easthaven I]

Suspending the Consititution would cause too much havoc anyway and would be counterproductive to the aims of the people who did it. And while some portions of the military would remain following their orders blindly, I strongly believe most of the military would point their rifles in the opposite directions, their backs towards the Constitution they swore to defend. It would be an unlawful order to go against the Constitution, and soldiers know its unlawful to obey unlawful orders, right? The military ain't made up of mindless zombies like many seem to believe(well maybe except for the jarheads).

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Re: Re: Would a WMD attack destroy the US Constitution?

Originally posted by St Leo

that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country

I must have missed the part of history where the US was demilitarized.

...or Canada for that matter

[Nubclear]

Weren't you banned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Think about who the sitting President is. Do you think that, given that excuse, he wouldn't jump at the chance to suspend the Constitution and become President for Life. We are talking about someone who knows damn well he wasn't elected in the first place and owes his office to the violation of the Constitution.

The question, however, is given how pissed the military and CIA are at him, how long he'd make it before they removed him from power?

It is simply amazing how a Communist who advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government and its constitution would accuse any president of the likelihood of overthrowing the United States Constitution.

Hypocricsy anyone?

[POTUS]

They don't need to even suspend the Constitution. Under a series of cases from the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that in a war zone, or in any area under martial law, i.e. bases, habeas corpus may be suspended. You think that if a nuke blows up, the civillian authorities will be left alone to solve the problem?

[David Floyd]

Those SCOTUS rulings do not match the wording of the Constitution, or any imaginable intent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those SCOTUS rulings do not match the wording of the Constitution, or any imaginable intent.

Sorry David:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

They match the wording of the Constitution very well.