Patrick1978
Gone Fishin'
In the late 1970's, the U.S. Congress passes a new law banning all military service members from voting in presidential elections, citing that it contradicts "civilian control over the military".
...
Given the protests in the early seventies over the disparity in minimum ages for conscription and voting expect manor protests, especially if conscription is still in place.
And then you very quickly see the Army and Marine Corps march on Washington with a lot of talk about how they took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies...Maybe the anti-war protesters who treated the Vietnam vets horribly could've been in a much greater number then OTL and moved to influence the government to take steps to clamp down on service member rights?
Which would certainly bring an end to civilian rule...And then you very quickly see the Army and Marine Corps march on Washington with a lot of talk about how they took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies...
Which would certainly bring an end to civilian rule...
Something like this could have been done with the earlier POD. It was the tradition in the nineteenth century that non-interference of officers in civilian politics extended to not voting. Of course that didn't stop former officers from often being elected to office. Not famously, though it should be, Zachary Taylor never cast a vote before his own election to President.
But the first Congress could have made it an offense to vote in the UCMJ for the federal army and I don't think anyone would have thought it was a big deal. Path dependence means that it just stays in force. At the most, later on it would have been narrowed down to apply to only career federal regular army and navy servicemen, not conscripts or reservists.
THe mass conscription implemented in 1940 changed Americans view of the military, and that has been slowly changing back after it ended.
Something like this could have been done with the earlier POD. It was the tradition in the nineteenth century that non-interference of officers in civilian politics extended to not voting. Of course that didn't stop former officers from often being elected to office. Not famously, though it should be, Zachary Taylor never cast a vote before his own election to President.
But the first Congress could have made it an offense to vote in the UCMJ for the federal army and I don't think anyone would have thought it was a big deal. Path dependence means that it just stays in force. At the most, later on it would have been narrowed down to apply to only career federal regular army and navy servicemen, not conscripts or reservists.
THe mass conscription implemented in 1940 changed Americans view of the military, and that has been slowly changing back after it ended.
Technically, yes.I freely admit that I am not a constitutional scholar, nor have I ever played one on TV--But do I understand that states can set their own voting criteria for Federal elections? That California could, for example, franchise undocumented non-citizens and bar votes from serving US citizens in the military?
I freely admit that I am not a constitutional scholar, nor have I ever played one on TV--But do I understand that states can set their own voting criteria for Federal elections?
No, just that group of civiliansWhich would certainly bring an end to civilian rule...
In the late 1970's, the U.S. Congress passes a new law banning all military service members from voting in presidential elections, citing that it contradicts "civilian control over the military".
Maybe the anti-war protesters who treated the Vietnam vets horribly could've been in a much greater number then OTL and moved to influence the government to take steps to clamp down on service member rights?
And then you very quickly see the Army and Marine Corps march on Washington with a lot of talk about how they took an oath to defend the Constitution from both foreign and DOMESTIC enemies...
Which would certainly bring an end to civilian rule...