Martin Lewis a contributor of Huffingtonpost says that General Pace should lead a coup against President Bush

Martin Lewis: General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming" - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/general-pace-you-can-sa_b_61785.html)

Citing justification in the UCMJ he claims that removing Bush from duties as Commander in Chief is not an illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup.

The Constitution gives the President the unambiguous role as Commander in Chief. The UCMJ does not trump the Constitution.

I think Mr. Lewis ,who's bio indicates that the he makes his bread and butter in the entertainment industry ,and who's name invokes the comedy of the great Martin and Lewis team;should at least bone up on the Constitution before he makes such an absurd proposal . Hint... only Congress can remove the President from office.

I honestly and sincerely hope that his column is a tongue in cheek attempt to get moonbats braying and that he is not serious. Judging from the comments to the column I have to get the Huffpo readers kudos... Even they see the absurdity in his proposal


Sir:

To put it bluntly, you're out of your mind. The last thing that we ever want our military doing, is becoming some kind of Praetorian Guard that develops the habit of making and breakng Caesars.

Yes, it would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

However, there are many people out there who misunderstand the nature of a military coup. They assume that a military takeover of government will lead to greater freedoms, when in fact, because of the disciplinary nature of any military force, military coups ALWAYS result in fewer freedoms. It is similar to the mistake that many people make regarding the difference between "self-rule" (libertarianism) and "no rule" (anarchy). The people mistake military coup (martial law) for elimination of the current government. The two, while related, are not necessarily the same thing.

Elliot

His idea is a limited coup.;The strange notion that Bush could continue his executive functions but denying him his sworn duty as Commander in Chief of the military .

Such talk would've fallen in the realm of sedition laws in the past... at least after everyone stopped laughing .

Ain't no such thing as a "limited coup". A coup is a military takeover. A "limited coup" is like being "a little bit pregnant" or having a "small WMD". "Limited Coups" have a tendency to not limit themselves.

Besides, the entire power of the Executive branch lies in the fact that he has the authority to call out the military. Take away that authority, the executive branch loses all power, domestic and foreign.

"Martin Lewis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis) is a British-born, Hollywood-based humorist, commentator, producer and radio host."

I hope he was playing the role of humorist (a lousy one) in that. But you never know about these people...

Bizarre. This guy seems to think that the President is a member of the military, but in fact he is not. The President is not a commissioned officer, and so all the nonsense about court martial is just that, nonsense. The President is the Commander in Chief, which means he is above the military; hence he is not subject to the regulations or processes of the military.

I thought liberals hated the military- industrial complex.

I thought liberals hated the military- industrial complex.

No, no, no, Tom. You're confused. Liberals have a complex about the military and industry.

:rolleyes:

Elliot

I thought liberals hated the military- industrial complex.
Did you know both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" who are presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. Both extreme "Left" and "right" are artificial devices to bring about change. :D

DC,

I tend to see politics as a circle: the two furthest points from each other are also the two closest points. Fascism and Communism are supposedly on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but both the origins and the methods of both philosophies are close enough to each other as to be indestinguishable.

Elliot

DC,

I tend to see politics as a circle: the two furthest points from each other are also the two closest points. Fascism and Communism are supposedly on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but both the origins and the methods of both philosophies are close enough to each other as to be indestinguishable.

Elliot
Ultimately, with either, the State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen; an individual does not exist for himself in these systems of government, but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...

Tom

Many Marxists have participated in anarchist revolutions, and many anarchists have participated in Marxist revolutions. However, anarchism and Marxism have strong disagreements on issues including the nature of the state, the class structure of society, and the method of historical materialism.
Anarchism and Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism)