However, if it were to come to that, I think events will take on a certain, urgent logic and Washington will have its hands full to overflowing trying to calm millions upon millions of Americans because, although some will support such an action (as they support nearly anything done by those in power) others, and I would predict many others, will be strongly opposed.
And I'm not talking about lbo-talk style lefties now but the general populace, including quite a few cultural conservatives who take the idea of constitutional law very seriously.
It would be a dangerous maneuver for the Bush admin because it would unleash a variety of forces and feelings that could not be easily contained and produce a host of unpredictable consequences that would not necessarily be in their favor. In other words, the enactment of 'emergency laws' to support Bush in office without the benefit of an election would be the final act of divorcement from legitimacy and would be seen as such by millions of people - here and abroad.
The question no one in the media seems to be asking (surprise, surprise) is this: given the immense size and population of the United States, even a terrorist attack on the scale of another 11 Sept. would directly effect only a small portion of the citizenry. What would prevent us from holding elections in the rest of the country as scheduled and making alternative arrangements for that area that's been attacked?
When Homeland Sec chief Ridge speaks, you'd think "The Terrorists" had their fingers on the fire button for a geosynchronous array of orbital weapons platforms that could devastate the North American landmass.
.d.