About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view k3vsDad's profile
    Posted June 25, 2012 by
    Farmersburg, Indiana
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from k3vsDad

    Radical Change? Coup in US of A?


    James  Fallows wrote in The Atlantic Sunday that there are 5 signs that the US  of A is undergoing a radical change. In the earlier article, since  updated, Fallows used the word, coup, rather than radical change. The  update version takes "coup" out of the dialogue.

    I  disagree with his premise and the 5 signs he listed to back up his  hypothesis. But I leave it up to you to decide whether the US being  subjected to radical change or a coup is developing.

    For Fallows, it is the Republicans and the Supreme Court who are responsible for mounting the move.

    *  First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
    *   Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of  the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained,  humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
    *  Once  on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do  existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
    *   Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural  rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and  appointments, especially to the courts.
    *  And, when a major piece of  legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court  prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were  originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential  nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

    How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?


    In summing up, Fallows had this to say:

    Underscoring  the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19  of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only  eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The  headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: "Obama Health  Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection."

    How would you  characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not  follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction  agenda? That's how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was  living there. Now it's how law professors are describing the Supreme  Court of the John Roberts era.

    From  the Cornfield, do you feel that the Supreme Court is working in secret  with Republicans to mount a coup or take over our republican form of  government in violation of the Constitution?

    Add your Story Add your Story