Allende violated the Constitution, but Pinochet canceled it, wrote himself his own, and installed himself as leader of a violent military junta. Now please explain to me why the latter act is less of a problem, Constitutionally, than the former.
Because Pinochet's coup led to freedom and prosperity and the elimination of every Commie he could find. Not enough unfortunately.
Allende's version of governance would have led to Che Guevara on every wall.
Got it?
Don't get logical with us. :)
Why don't we use some hypotheticals and see where it goes?
Let's say Hillary wins the presidential election in 2008, she immediately starts punishing her rivals and violating the constitution. She takes over private property, nationalize companies and ignores the U.S. Supreme Court. ON TOP of that, she takes marching orders from the United Nations. Her policies plunge our nation's economy into a deep depression. Hyperinflation happens... 500% annual inflation. Hillary wants to suspend our constitutional rights and shut down Rush Limbaugh, and Free Republic. She wants to imprison anyone who doesn't like her policies.
Wouldn't you agree we are heading to a very dangerous place? What exactly would you suggest we do knowing we don't have much time before Hillary consolidates her power and becomes a brutal tyrant like Stalin?