[rmnunez]

the states would always eventually come in to straighten the mess out. So, if the fasicst control continued, it would be nothing other than a coup.

We can only hope the federal structure would serve as a brake because there have been fascist models in federal states (Germany). I think a much closer state/national relationship is required than what prevails in the US.

if the fasicst control continued, it would be nothing other than a coup.

I'm not sure I follow. The coup, short for "coup d'etat" is the way fascists take control. It means hit, strike or blow, against the state in French. This is typically undertaken by the military and literally involves hitting or striking the head of state, often by actually attacking and killing him or destroying the seat of executive power and chasing him away.

This system of government is attractive because it always features messianic leadership, great visions of the future and highly motivated leaders with great goals. Everyone is imbued with this shared spirit and purpose, a pursuit of some epic "national mission".

But it has its serious difficulties. One crucial problem is legitimacy and this always involves problems with institution, term and succession. The coup is thrown, martial law applied and emergency powers assumed, these are specified and limited, of provisional application due to exceptional circumstances, but it is completely within the bounds of the law. Once the enhanced powers are seized, the ruler applies them to accomplish that mission. Usually this works out quite well, but then the ruler realizes that he would rather remain in control and can accomplish other missions, and when his subjects express disapproval those enhanced powers make repression an easy choice.

Dictators, tyrants, despots, "strongmen" and other rulers become entrenched in their positions. Sometimes they become paranoiac and purge the military. Often they want to favour their most loyal followers and promote family and friends whose rapacity and greed are ignored and disregarded. With time all this gets institutionalized and corruptly exploited, interests arise and this problem with continuity and succession.

If you figured the states would throw a coup against the federal government if it became too fascistic, this is more unlikely. You need a charismatic leader to throw a coup, the states don't act together except via the executive. A bunch of them are not going to rally together under one of their governors, and if some were in the coup and others opposed, the stage is laid for civil war.

Impeachment is a special and highly politicised procedure to attack the personification of executive authority. This is something that is inherently risky to national security in peacetime, while at war it would be even more so -particularly as the proceedings are pursued due to opposition to the war.

The process requires qualified majorities to make it more difficult to do this, because we don't want an Italian-style system with governments ousted every time the president has a disagreement with the legislature. Hence a 'supermajority' is required in Congress to initiate these proceedings against Bush.

This isn't going to happen for many reasons; it would be very bad for any Republican prospects in the elections; it is very risky in an electoral context as the endorsers stake their prospects to the outcome; it would be very bad for the military engagements underway; it looks like this is done because of disagreements on policy issues which are recognized as an executive capacity; it is a complicated and arduous process which is unlikely to conclude satisfactorily before Bush's term ends.

State governors favouring impeachment are not part of the picture, what are needed is state legislators in Washington of this mien.

The only "mechanism" states have to prevent fascism is one that arises naturally triggered by federal encroachments. Since fascism applies exceptional powers from a centralized authority, invariably these come into conflict with the current sharing of competences and capacities. When this happens, governors challenge the sacrifice of their state's authority. This acts as a brake at all levels through administrative agencies.

Consider how governors and the federal authorities have dealt with the immigration matter and notice how budgets, jurisdictions, equipment and responsibilities constantly are subject to dispute between state and federal institutions pursuing conflicting policies. Governors with large, powerful and active immigrant communties who want to take a more laid back attitude struggling against federal excesses, others alarmed over the "aliens" chaffing at the federal curbs on what states can do and restrictions in funding.

I think the difficulties prevent a fascist system from ever being successfully implemented, presidents can assume exceptional powers, but in due course the need passes and the status quo ante restored.