Bush makes power grab

[loosecannon]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over(by the president).

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

The directive specifies that the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism will be designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.

Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination."

[loosecannon]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[Yurt]

catastrophic emergency has occurred

What do you propose? Who will take action? Who will speed things up? Who will "make it" happen?

[loosecannon]

What do you propose? Who will take action? Who will speed things up? Who will "make it" happen?

since you asked.....I propose that the constitutional government that this executive order claims to defend was based on a solemn diligence to ensure that nobody had the power to declare themselves king.

This directive gives all of the power in our nation to one man based on that one man's directive that an emergency has occured.

[82Marine89]

I'm glad I own numerous weapons, lots of ammo, and am able to use them proficiently. I fear a civil war in this countries future.

[Hobbit]

I heard about this on Coast to Coast AM. It isn't the most reliable of sources, but they did bust the lid off the Dubai ports thing. I'd like to know a little more before I pass judgement, but this seems dangerous to me.

[Yurt]

since you asked.....I propose that the constitutional government that this executive order claims to defend was based on a solemn diligence to ensure that nobody had the power to declare themselves king.

This directive gives all of the power in our nation to one man based on that one man's directive that an emergency has occured.

???

How does this answer my post?

[loosecannon]

???

How does this answer my post?

I propose that we honor the intention of the constitution to prevent one man rule from ever occuring.

[82Marine89]

What do you propose? Who will take action? Who will speed things up? Who will "make it" happen?

I propose the locals take control with augmentation from the federal gov't. Washington has proved time and time again that they can't, either financially or logistically, properly manage a disaster.

[loosecannon]

I propose the locals take control with augmentation from the federal gov't. Washington has proved time and time again that they can't, either financially or logistically, properly manage a disaster.

Agreed; Katrina sealed my opinion.

This directive upturns the entire cart in terms of the role of the national guard and states authority.

And the man who proposes a war without end will as likely declare an emergency without end.

[avatar4321]

Simply signing a directive isnt a power grab.

Enforcing it, might be. but there is no way its ever going to be accepted if its as bad as you claim.

[Gaffer]

Such directives have always existed. It;s called Marshall Law. It can be declared locally or nationally. I suppose he could be upgrading things in anticipation of a civil uprising due to the amnesty bill, but this is all rewriting of old directives that have existed all along.

I haven't finished reading all of it yet. That's going to take some time. I don't see it as a power grab though. Just directives for emergency measures.

[Joe Steel]

"The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."


Given this president's willingness to ignore law and constitutional processes and his loose and casual relationship with the truth, we have reason to be fearful.

[Birdzeye]

Agreed; Katrina sealed my opinion.

This directive upturns the entire cart in terms of the role of the national guard and states authority.

And the man who proposes a war without end will as likely declare an emergency without end.


That's what I worry about. And I fear that we will always be vulnerable to having an "emergency without end" declared by any president, not just Bush.

[Doniston]

What do you propose? Who will take action? Who will speed things up? Who will "make it" happen? It just did, by the signing of that docuement. Did someone say Civil war????

[theHawk]

Sweet. Come on everyone - "Eight More Years! Eight More Years!"

[loosecannon]

Given this president's willingness to ignore law and constitutional processes and his loose and casual relationship with the truth, we have reason to be fearful.

9/11 could have been declared such an emergency if this law had been in place. And Katrina as well. Or a major flu epidemic.

[loosecannon]

Such directives have always existed. It;s called Marshall Law. It can be declared locally or nationally. I suppose he could be upgrading things in anticipation of a civil uprising due to the amnesty bill, but this is all rewriting of old directives that have existed all along.



If that were true why bother to do it. And on a technical note the directive dissolves those previous directives, establishes a permanent chain of command/ infrastructure to address the transition of authority.

This is completely different from the previous executive orders.

[Mr. P]

Not uncommon...Non-issue really. IMO

Presidential directives are a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. Because of the nature of presidential directives as pertaining to the national security of the United States, many presidential directives are promulgated as classified. Various presidents since the administration of John F. Kennedy have issued such directives but under different names.

* Kennedy called his presidential directives National Security Action Memoranda or NSAMs. Lyndon Johnson kept the name during his tenure in the White House.
* Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford called their presidential directives National Security Decision Memoranda or NSDMs.
* Jimmy Carter simply called his orders Presidential Directives or PDs.
* Ronald Reagan used the title National Security Decision Directives or NSDDs.
* George H. W. Bush called them National Security Directives or NSDs.
* Bill Clinton called them Presidential Decision Directives or PDDs.
* George W. Bush issues National Security Presidential Directives or NSPDs. After September 11, 2001, he issued Homeland Security Presidential Directives or HSPDs, with the consent of the Homeland Security Council. The first such directive created the Homeland Security Council while the second changed immigration policies to combat terrorism.

[Hobbit]

Such directives have always existed. It;s called Marshall Law. It can be declared locally or nationally. I suppose he could be upgrading things in anticipation of a civil uprising due to the amnesty bill, but this is all rewriting of old directives that have existed all along.

I haven't finished reading all of it yet. That's going to take some time. I don't see it as a power grab though. Just directives for emergency measures.

I have nothing constructive to contribute at this time, but I feel like being anal, so feel free to simply ignore this post.

Actually, it's called 'martial' law, not marshall law. Marshalls are those guys who hunt down fugitives. 'Martial' means pertaining to combat, war, or the military.

[Yurt]

I propose that we honor the intention of the constitution to prevent one man rule from ever occuring.

Ok. It does beg an interesting question...


since you asked.....I propose that the constitutional government that this executive order claims to defend was based on a solemn diligence to ensure that nobody had the power to declare themselves king.

This directive gives all of the power in our nation to one man based on that one man's directive that an emergency has occured.


I would say that history shows that government works best in a crisis when there is one "head" instead of many, but that is not always the case. For the most part, I do believe that during an emergency, the president should be the one to take charge if something affects the nation. This power is limited, because its duration is limited. For a good reason, to not limit the time when the president takes complete control, would be to give "king" like powers.

How do you propose to deal with an emergency then? Should we have multiple heads?

[Yurt]

I have nothing constructive to contribute at this time, but I feel like being anal, so feel free to simply ignore this post.

Actually, it's called 'martial' law, not marshall law. Marshalls are those guys who hunt down fugitives. 'Martial' means pertaining to combat, war, or the military.

My uncle Marshall thinks he's martial...

[Gunny]

since you asked.....I propose that the constitutional government that this executive order claims to defend was based on a solemn diligence to ensure that nobody had the power to declare themselves king.

This directive gives all of the power in our nation to one man based on that one man's directive that an emergency has occured.

I tend to agree with your assessment. DO you think it will be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (via SCOTUS)?

[loosecannon]

I tend to agree with your assessment. DO you think it will be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (via SCOTUS)?

I have never heard of an executive order ever being brought before the SC. If and when this order is effected there could very likely be a challenge but at that point it may be too late.

One of the frailties of our system is that if there is a true impasse between the courts, congress and the pres, what happens next?

And much of the activity will be classified.

What bothers me the most is that this order says a permanent body must be in place and prepared at all times for a transition of power.

At no time in the whole nuclear standoff was that ever considered neccesary. How could it be neccesary now?

[loosecannon]

Ok. It does beg an interesting question...




I would say that history shows that government works best in a crisis when there is one "head" instead of many, but that is not always the case. For the most part, I do believe that during an emergency, the president should be the one to take charge if something affects the nation. This power is limited, because its duration is limited. For a good reason, to not limit the time when the president takes complete control, would be to give "king" like powers.

How do you propose to deal with an emergency then? Should we have multiple heads?

What kind of emergency? We had plans loosely in place for a nuclear attack response for decades. That preparation has mostly collapsed.

9/11 only lacked a faster military response that was in place but wasn't executed.

Katrina was a botched evac. THEY should have had a better plan.

Kennedy was assassinated and the transition was no prob.

What else can we be and should we be prepared for?

[Gaffer]

I have nothing constructive to contribute at this time, but I feel like being anal, so feel free to simply ignore this post.

Actually, it's called 'martial' law, not marshall law. Marshalls are those guys who hunt down fugitives. 'Martial' means pertaining to combat, war, or the military.

My bad, sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Yurt]

What kind of emergency? We had plans loosely in place for a nuclear attack response for decades. That preparation has mostly collapsed.

9/11 only lacked a faster military response that was in place but wasn't executed.

Katrina was a botched evac. THEY should have had a better plan.

Kennedy was assassinated and the transition was no prob.

What else can we be and should we be prepared for?

I know, responses have not always been perfect. What then do you propose as the solution, e.g., since you don't want the president to have this power, what do you propose?

[Gaffer]

If that were true why bother to do it. And on a technical note the directive dissolves those previous directives, establishes a permanent chain of command/ infrastructure to address the transition of authority.

This is completely different from the previous executive orders.

I think Bush did this because of lessons learned from katrina. In the case of a national emergency he doesn't want some partisan governor or others to be interferring with the governments aiding and securing the area.

If a nuke is set off over a major city, Bush can act without waiting for state requests and beaucratic bullshit. That's the kind of thing this directive is aimed at. It cuts out the people that will want to play politics with it and provide the president with the authority to act immediately.

[TheSage]

I think Bush did this because of lessons learned from katrina. In the case of a national emergency he doesn't want some partisan governor or others to be interferring with the governments aiding and securing the area.

If a nuke is set off over a major city, Bush can act without waiting for state requests and beaucratic bullshit. That's the kind of thing this directive is aimed at. It cuts out the people that will want to play politics with it and provide the president with the authority to act immediately.

Yeah. Or if pesky citizens actually try to enforce the border on their own, bush can stop them without having to worry about things like constitutional rights, you know, that kind of thing.

You're totally in denial, man. Wake the f up.

[Doniston]

I tend to agree with your assessment. DO you think it will be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (via SCOTUS)? Idon't know about tht, But I do think that it is a trick as serious as this which could bring about an uprising against th Administrtion, and I will bet that there will be an influx of attempt to asssasinate Bush I might even donate to the defense fund of the one responsible.

[Doniston]

I tend to agree with your assessment. DO you think it will be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (via SCOTUS)? I don't know about that, But I do think that it is a trick as serious as this which could bring about an uprising against the administration, and I will bet that there will be an influx of attempts to asssasinate Bush

[loosecannon]

I think Bush did this because of lessons learned from katrina. In the case of a national emergency he doesn't want some partisan governor or others to be interferring with the governments aiding and securing the area.

If a nuke is set off over a major city, Bush can act without waiting for state requests and beaucratic bullshit. That's the kind of thing this directive is aimed at. It cuts out the people that will want to play politics with it and provide the president with the authority to act immediately.

Yeah that has been a real problem in this nation, folks playing politics in moments of crisis.

Are you well Gaffe?

[Gunny]

I have never heard of an executive order ever being brought before the SC. If and when this order is effected there could very likely be a challenge but at that point it may be too late.

One of the frailties of our system is that if there is a true impasse between the courts, congress and the pres, what happens next?

And much of the activity will be classified.

What bothers me the most is that this order says a permanent body must be in place and prepared at all times for a transition of power.

At no time in the whole nuclear standoff was that ever considered neccesary. How could it be neccesary now?

This is how I see it: THIS is the fault of partisan politics. It was never necessary before the what was best for the nation was always first-and-foremost. It appears to be just the opposite now.

I REALLY don't like the President having the authority to declare himself defacto king. At teh same time, what is the likelihood of Congress getting together in a bipartisan manner and addressing an issue? When they could, they were the perfect check and balance. Now that they cannot, they are nothing but either obstructionist or enabler.

When we start electing officials again based on ideals and not their party affiliation, we might make a stride forward.

What i'm really wondering how this comes into play with two issues .... Iraq -- the president can declare a whatever and bypass Congress; and two, the immigration issue where the President is determined to force what is obviously an unpopular law on the American people.

IMO, Bush is doing more now to alienate independent thinking conservatives than Harry Reid.

What's becoming more and more obvious is that we the people are actually powerless to control either party acting in partisan and/or unconstiutional manners.

[Dilloduck]

This is how I see it: THIS is the fault of partisan politics. It was never necessary before the what was best for the nation was always first-and-foremost. It appears to be just the opposite now.

I REALLY don't like the President having the authority to declare himself defacto king. At teh same time, what is the likelihood of Congress getting together in a bipartisan manner and addressing an issue? When they could, they were the perfect check and balance. Now that they cannot, they are nothing but either obstructionist or enabler.

When we start electing officials again based on ideals and not their party affiliation, we might make a stride forward.

What i'm really wondering how this comes into play with two issues .... Iraq -- the president can declare a whatever and bypass Congress; and two, the immigration issue where the President is determined to force what is obviously an unpopular law on the American people.

IMO, Bush is doing more now to alienate independent thinking conservatives than Harry Reid.

What's becoming more and more obvious is that we the people are actually powerless to control either party acting in partisan and/or unconstiutional manners.

:clap: A globalists dream !!

[Yurt]

Are you well?


Yeah that has been a real problem in this nation, folks playing politics in moments of crisis.

Are you well Gaffe?

Yurt:


I know, responses have not always been perfect. What then do you propose as the solution, e.g., since you don't want the president to have this power, what do you propose?

[loosecannon]

What's becoming more and more obvious is that we the people are actually powerless to control either party acting in partisan and/or unconstiutional manners.

because of the two party domination of power.

Addressing your earlier point, it was actually a design feature that Congress would have a difficult time reaching consent.

The idea was that prudence would be served by having to meet a high standard.

But that idea did not envision party politics. The parties surprised everybody in the early 1800's.

[loosecannon]

Are you well?



Yurt:

Yurt I asnswered your question with more questions.

What do we need to be prepared for that is a greater emergency than the cold war nuclear standoff?

I propose we adopt measures similar to those of old. Civil defense, civil preparedness, maintaining the local, county, state, city gummit authority structures.

[loosecannon]

This is how I see it: THIS is the fault of partisan politics. It was never necessary before the what was best for the nation was always first-and-foremost. It appears to be just the opposite now.

I REALLY don't like the President having the authority to declare himself defacto king. At teh same time, what is the likelihood of Congress getting together in a bipartisan manner and addressing an issue? When they could, they were the perfect check and balance. Now that they cannot, they are nothing but either obstructionist or enabler.

When we start electing officials again based on ideals and not their party affiliation, we might make a stride forward.

What i'm really wondering how this comes into play with two issues .... Iraq -- the president can declare a whatever and bypass Congress; and two, the immigration issue where the President is determined to force what is obviously an unpopular law on the American people.

IMO, Bush is doing more now to alienate independent thinking conservatives than Harry Reid.

What's becoming more and more obvious is that we the people are actually powerless to control either party acting in partisan and/or unconstiutional manners.

I agree. The constitutional design met it's match as soon as political parties emerged around 1802. George Washington was deeply troubled by the parties. T Jefferson spent his later life ranting about how a revolutiuon would be required every generation.

Instead for 230 years we haven't yet removed a pres via impeachment. And we haven't once had a constitutional convention. And passing amendments to the consti has proven almost too difficult.

The American experiment was imperfect. And it has largely failed.

It was designed to be a self renewing process with abundant citizen input.

When asked what he thought about the const. Ben Franklin said it would work well enough for a while but that our nation would fail when corruption overtook the people.

[Gunny]

because of the two party domination of power.

Addressing your earlier point, it was actually a design feature that Congress would have a difficult time reaching consent.

The idea was that prudence would be served by having to meet a high standard.

But that idea did not envision party politics. The parties surprised everybody in the early 1800's.

I can understand the design feature, and it makes perfect sense except that it works TOO well. When you have the Democrats controlled by the extreme left vs Republicns who have no idea what they stand for anymore on EVERY issue, nothing gets done. We hear a lot of rhetoric on the most visible issues that never comes to anything, while the less visible but as or more important issues get all but ignored with the occasional lip service.

We as a people accept the fact that politicians will not deliver on their campaign promises, and anymore, they go right from the election to campaigning for the next one.

We as a nation will get NOTHING done until after the next election. Congress will blame its failures on Bush, and vice-versa. If a Republican is elected, more of the same if the Democrats retain control of Congress.

And I'm not just picking on Dems. I first got pissed off about ths political impasse crap when it was Clinton and a Republican Congress.

I can understand political/ideological disagreement. What I can't stand is the adversarial realtionship on EVERY issue between Congress and the President. The only one they seem to agree on is so unpopular with the people I'm surprised it hasn't been scrapped yet.

But then, when was the last time what WE wanted important?

[loosecannon]

We as a people accept the fact that politicians will not deliver on their campaign promises, and anymore, they go right from the election to campaigning for the next one.



The campaigns, campaign finance and the rigid partisan structure prob is responsible for the gridlock.

Personally voting on party lines ought to be illegal. I mean somehow a rep MUST be forced to rep his constituents, not his party.

The intent of the founders was not for reps to be more loyal to parties than to the people.

[diuretic]

The campaigns, campaign finance and the rigid partisan structure prob is responsible for the gridlock.

Personally voting on party lines ought to be illegal. I mean somehow a rep MUST be forced to rep his constituents, not his party.

The intent of the founders was not for reps to be more loyal to parties than to the people.

I have to say I feel better voting for a party platform than a fickle individual. I know what to expect from a party platform but heck I could vote for an individual who turns turtle as soon as they get into parliament and I'd have to wait three (federal) or four (state) years for my chance to be rid of them.

[Psychoblues]

We all look for depth, Dr.



I have to say I feel better voting for a party platform than a fickle individual. I know what to expect from a party platform but heck I could vote for an individual who turns turtle as soon as they get into parliament and I'd have to wait three (federal) or four (state) years for my chance to be rid of them.

That's how we got gwb.