Bush Makes Power Grab

Bush Makes Power Grab
posted May 24, 2007

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.

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."

Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend. Townsend spent 13 years at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where she served as assistant commandant for intelligence. She is a White House staff member in the executive office of the president who also chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the National Security Council reports directly to the president.

The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the President "may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority," if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the President submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the requirements of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 under Townsend's direction.

The White House had no comment.

Sounds fairly similar to what the Finns did during the Winter War by dissolving their government and making Mannerheim head of state.

Got a link?

Ajax

Shhhh........I can hear the black helicopters

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/

the Orwellian-named Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), which is defnined as meaning "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".

Get that? "Proper" respect for the separation of powers. Under whose definition? Well, that would be The Preznit himself, and we've seen the respect he shows for the separation of powers. And what's "cooperative" mean? If they don't want to cooperate, is it off to the stadium to prepare for a trip to Gitmo?

The directive would kick in basically any time Baby Doc feels it is necessary; all he has to do is declare a "Catastrophic Emergency" -- which by definition in the directive itself 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."

Now how bleeping vague is that? A hurricane in Mexico? An ice storm in Canada? Pakistan dropping the big one into the men's room at the Taj Mahal? Even a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar against the Euro.

Any and all of these can be interpreted within the broad confines of this directive.

Note that it doesn't have to be on American soil. Anywhere on the planet (and probably off of it) is fair game for this far-reaching directive.

This goes way beyond the end-run around habeas corpus codified in the so-called Patriot Act.

This is nothing less than a blueprint for instituting martial law in the United State -- with Der Monkey Fuehrer himself at the top. Even Tricky Dick Nixon didn't go this far with his infamous Houston Plan, which provided for, among other things, extra-legal wiretaps, agents provocateur, and the rounding up of potential "subversives".

Calm down man.

While this is an alarming development, just write to your congressman to get a good Judicial Review of it, and voila! It can be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

Now that I have said it, I plan to do so.

Quote:

---

Calm down man.

While this is an alarming development, just write to your congressman to get a good Judicial Review of it, and voila! It can be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

---

Well going by Zaknafien 's post s he may well have something to worry about here :laugh4:

I'm old enough to remember how rumors about abolishing the Constitution have swirled around every President since I was a kid. Except Bush Senior. For whatever reason, I never read or heard that he was going to become a dictator. But Reagan, yep, Clinton, yep. Somehow it never happens.

The President doesn't hold as much power as one might think he does, even if the President did 'try' to dissolve congress, theres a sure bet that either Congress would ignore it, or the Military would step in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm old enough to remember how rumors about abolishing the Constitution have swirled around every President since I was a kid. Except Bush Senior. For whatever reason, I never read or heard that he was going to become a dictator. But Reagan, yep, Clinton, yep. Somehow it never happens.

---

Oh stop it with this voice of reason stuff. Next you'll be suggesting that if Bush wanted to go dictator on us he'd have had this thing promulgated in 11/2001 when nobody would have yelped instead of leaving it until year six when it would mostly empower his (probably democrat) successor.

It can ONLY be reasonably explained as follows: Cheney will order Bush to use this EO to set aside Congress, declare emergency and rule by fiat until Haliburton assures them that they have a stranglehold on economic freedom in the Mid-East.

To the barricades! Anarchy now, let's get organized!!!! :pirate2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To the barricades!

---

Did someone say Barricade!

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives...-Barricade.jpg

Breaking news: President Bush declares a state of "Catastrophic Emergencey" that will remain indefinite. He has nullified all upcoming elections and will not vacate the office until "The Decider has nothing more to decide" or "...Nascar becomes the national sport of the US and we win a gold medal for petrol-chugging in the Olympics."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the President "may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."

---

It's a good job you all have the Second Amendment and all those guns so that you can rise against the tyranny that will confiscate your barbeques.

Has the rising started? Can foreign mercenaries join you in your fight to throw off the shackles placed on liberty? I have a pointed stick and a shillelagh somewhere...

So the president signed a bill reaffirming he can institute martial law in the case of a national crisis. Nothing new, all presidents had that power.

I agree with Lemur on this, a lot of fear mongering from liberals here.

I would appear as though the republican democrat congress is destroying liberty.:creep:

Congress has nothing to do with presidential directives nor the homeland security department. By the way, the military was instructed to be prepared for martial law-enforcing duties yesterday :)

If I understand things right, it is similar to what Germany had after WW1. It was a law that gave the president almost unlimited power incase of a national desaster. At that time, president wasn't the leader of the government. He was only represantative, but elected directly by the people.

The regulation was abused when there were many parties in the parliament (including extreme ones) and it became impossible to form a stable, democratic government. Therefore the president declared national desaster and chose a government that pleased him. This went on for a couiple of years. If you wanted to become leader of the government, you had to be the favorite of the president, not the favorite of the people.

At the end of this process was Hitler.

Don't intend to say that the US will go the same way, though.:skull:

Indeed. And as our beloved document says, to paraphrase, when government stops working, its time to change it by any means neccesary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's a good job you all have the Second Amendment and all those guns so that you can rise against the tyranny that will confiscate your barbeques.

Has the rising started? Can foreign mercenaries join you in your fight to throw off the shackles placed on liberty? I have a pointed stick and a shillelagh somewhere...

---

Advanced eh? Bananas not good enough, eh?

I'll join with my apples!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

So the president signed a bill reaffirming he can institute martial law in the case of a national crisis. Nothing new, all presidents had that power.

---

SSSSSHHHHHHHH, yes your right, they have always had that ability but acknolwedging that would eliminate yet another bush is evil conspiracy thread.

We definately need another :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

SSSSSHHHHHHHH, yes your right, they have always had that ability but acknolwedging that would eliminate yet another bush is evil conspiracy thread.

We definately need another :dizzy2:

---

Disclaimer - I didn't really read the OP completely

It would seem that the above somewhat "expands" on the Prez's power to institute martial law to more of a "I do it when I want to instead of there being a legitimate 'need'". It would seem to me that there's some real oversight needed to put the Executive branch back in it's proper place in our beloved government triumvirate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Disclaimer - I didn't really read the OP completely

It would seem that the above somewhat "expands" on the Prez's power to institute martial law to more of a "I do it when I want to instead of there being a legitimate 'need'". It would seem to me that there's some real oversight needed to put the Executive branch back in it's proper place in our beloved government triumvirate.

---

Well yes it does, but under Article 2 of the constitution he "Caring for the faithful execution of the law". Dont tell anyone but the National emergencies act that Zak is referencing is the law.

Now if he said that the law needed to be changed thats one thing, but no, this is a "power grab", when in truth its an execution of the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well yes it does, but under Article 2 of the constitution he "Caring for the faithful execution of the law". Dont tell anyone but the National emergencies act that Zak is referencing is the law.

Now if he said that the law needed to be changed thats one thing, but no, this is a "power grab", when in truth its an execution of the constitution.

---

Meh, I respect you to take your word for the above mate. It still hasn't changed my opinion about the Exec. branch needing some serious power checks in general though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Meh, I respect you to take your word for the above mate. It still hasn't changed my opinion about the Exec. branch needing some serious power checks in general though.

---

Dont take my word for it. The law The constitution article 2 Bush isnt my favorite guy either, but elected officials excersising thier job functions is not a power grab, its the law.

Perhaps now that the dems are in they will change the law? Well that wouldnt play well for the left would it? Nope, its a "power grab" :dizzy2:

Whats the use of being in power if you cant act on it? This is one of the powers the constitution reserves for the president. He wont be in office forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

So the president signed a bill reaffirming he can institute martial law in the case of a national crisis. Nothing new, all presidents had that power.

---

So if Presidents have always had this power- why go to the trouble of reaffirming it?

Id be interested to know what the differences are between the age old powers you mention and these new powers...might just highlight what the White House thinks it might need those powers for.

its not that the president's never had that power before. its just he's reaffirming it now and adding powers to it. like taking control of all 3 branches of government, and the ability to federalize guard and reserve troops WITHOUT approval of state governors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

its not that the president's never had that power before. its just he's reaffirming it now and adding powers to it. like taking control of all 3 branches of government, and the ability to federalize guard and reserve troops WITHOUT approval of state governors.

---

It doesn't read like a taking control of all three branches of government - that would be in direct violation of the constitution and would necessate a constitutional crisis, which congress and the judicial branch must act on.

The federalizing of guard troops and reserve troops has always been able to be done without state governor approval. It is rarely done - but the National Guard can be activated by the federal authority without any approval from the affected state.

Gah what do you know about the National Guard any way Red ? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

its not that the president's never had that power before. its just he's reaffirming it now and adding powers to it. like taking control of all 3 branches of government, and the ability to federalize guard and reserve troops WITHOUT approval of state governors.

---

He's not adding to it he's defining what martial law means, which is far different then 200 years ago.

As for the ability to use guard troops without consent, thats been in for over a year, little late on that. Quite a good thing, you need central authority for troops in a crisis. You don't need to split the forces between the president and the governor, that causes alot of problems. Note Katrina aftermath.

More fear mongering from the liberals it would seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Whats the use of being in power if you cant act on it? This is one of the powers the constitution reserves for the president. He wont be in office forever.

---

But hypothetically, could a president not invoke this power then use it to postpone the next presidential election? Not at all implying that Bush would do this (quite frankly, I think he's sick of being president and will be out of the White House like :daisy: through a goose as soon as his term is up), but isn't it possible?

The plan is coming together nicely...:fortune:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Gah what do you know about the National Guard any way Red ? :laugh4:

---

Oh nothing :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But hypothetically, could a president not invoke this power then use it to postpone the next presidential election? Not at all implying that Bush would do this (quite frankly, I think he's sick of being president and will be out of the White House like :daisy: through a goose as soon as his term is up), but isn't it possible?

---

No, read odin's wonderful links to article 2 of the constitution. Elections are an act of congress, and take place on the date specified by congress. The executive has no control over these. Not to mention a state of emergency is called by congress and can be stopped by congress.

Anyways, the president can't grant himself powers, not even congress can grant powers, though they've tryed. This is the president defining the current meaning of martial law if envoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

No, read odin's wonderful links to article 2 of the constitution. Elections are an act of congress, and take place on the date specified by congress. The executive has no control over these. Not to mention a state of emergency is called by congress and can be stopped by congress.

Anyways, the president can't grant himself powers, not even congress can grant powers, though they've tryed. This is the president defining the current meaning of martial law if envoked.

---

But from what I am able to piece together from the original post, the president can now basically override all other branches of government in case of a national emergency. Since, as you say, elections are an act of congress, and the president would have the power to override congress, what would stop him (or her, I'm thinking HRC here) from postponing an election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But from what I am able to piece together from the original post, the president can now basically override all other branches of government in case of a national emergency. Since, as you say, elections are an act of congress, and the president would have the power to override congress, what would stop him (or her, I'm thinking HRC here) from postponing an election?

---

Well, from what I've pierced together from the same source (OP), it seems to say that the law makes absolutely no mention of Congress whatsoever.

If such a constitutional crisis comes to a head I suspect Congress will assert its veto power, or some other obscure power they might have up their sleeves, with support from the US Supreme Court, the "interpreters" of the Constitution, whose self-asserted power of Judicial Review can essentially strike down any law they don't like.

The Bush Administration's vehement partisanship has done disasters for civil rights, but I doubt this is one of those cases.

hm, what if such a catastrophe destroyed the congress? say some terrorists targeted the capitol while in session?

Remember Linclon tried to suspend Habeus Corpus and SCOTUS shot him down. The president is not all powerful. There are always checks and balances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

hm, what if such a catastrophe destroyed the congress? say some terrorists targeted the capitol while in session?

---

There are procedures established for the replacement of Senators and Representives in case of their death while in office. So to destroy the current crop of politicans while could be unsettling its not a major catastrophe

Quote:

---

So to destroy the current crop of politicans while could be unsettling its not a major catastrophe

---

I say go for it :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I say go for it :laugh4:

---

Believe me mate, I'm all for humor in this day and age, but do be careful about what you write down on 'teh intarnets'. :embarassed:

Well they can check the bulk of my posts and be pretty sure with where I stand. I say bring it on. Ive nothing to hide. :help:

Personally, I thought Zak put his ducks in a row in presenting a reasonable presentation and hypothesis - as wells as, demonstrating just how stupid the Bushys are. Zak is right.

The ultimate grab for power, all power began under Ike (whom rejected it - he was a democrat in reality after all). Ike warned us of the MIC before he left office - everyone (public) listened and thought "WHAT?", the congress heard it and thought, "What $$$$$$ we ain't thoughts about?".

Nixon came within a nats ass of losing the second time he ran for prez. The third time he ran he got stupid about attacking a war hero - McGovern (+35 bomber runs, 3 crash landings, every medal the AAC offered but the MoH ... Nixon's people said he was weak), and gave carte blanche to his "dirty tricks" group to do what ever. ergo, Watergate, etc (financial corruption, pay offs to the corruptable, and allowing the influence of corporate sponsored lobbyist). Face it - Nixon wanted the pwer, all of it. And he could have had it had he realised just how stupid americans are, can be.

Looked at it for what it is? It is the wealthy that can afford to influence who rules the nation, it is up to the voters to determine it ... but, all the voters get is hype (political commercials). Hear something often enough that one is taught to believe? hey? Why argue something you're taught? Simple, really.

Thx, Zak. Challenging anything these days, seems to be a challange.

To have this type of power legally supported is exactly the same as proclaiming yourself dictator. This is a coup d'etat by definition, and I would be surprised if the congress doesn't stop it. Surely this must be considered a serious crime, no matter what the intention is.

here we go again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well they can check the bulk of my posts and be pretty sure with where I stand. I say bring it on. Ive nothing to hide. :help:

---

You may not have got opinions to hide, but joking statements to hide. Surveillance/control freaks seldom see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Oh stop it with this voice of reason stuff. Next you'll be suggesting that if Bush wanted to go dictator on us he'd have had this thing promulgated in 11/2001 when nobody would have yelped instead of leaving it until year six when it would mostly empower his (probably democrat) successor.

---

On the contrary, if you declare martial law and dictatorship powers in a single step you would immediately be overthrown. Historical dictators didn't just use a single event to claim dictatorship power, but take small steps at the time. All Bush needs if this law is passed, is a single more terrorist attack, or a war with Iran before the next election, then he is de jure and de facto dictator. Considering the simultaneous efforts to make the Iran issue heat up to war, I don't think it'll be hard for him to find such an event.

Thanks KC. I thought maybe my older days Republican imperialist views and military record would give me some credibility ! LOL... Anyways, what I see now is that most Americans are too concerned with imbicilic things like American Idol and Paris Hilton to be worried about real-world events and the state of our Republic. Its almost as if its a conscious effort to deaden the perceptions of a self-conscious American polity.

Bush is insane, and all reality a war criminal right up there with Andrew Jackson probably. But I don't blame Bush, I think he's merely a pawn, easily influenced, and honestly believes he's doing the right thing. Its the real power brokers like Cheney who are pressuring the POTUS to do these things.

I suggest anyone who hasnt seen "Why We Fight" and "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers" do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEnX5meWTPQ

Quote:

---

hanks KC. I thought maybe my older days Republican

---

Pssst. Relatively speaking you dont have any older days :laugh4: Now n my older days a a screaming hippie liberal :laugh4:

:dizzy2: Well lots of grand scheme's, plots all we need is the hero on the white horse to ride in and save the day. Maybe next time the thread would be better represented "one ring to rule them all"

But dont let the facts cloud the romance, I mean I get it, "Bush uses executive power granted under the constitution to employ a new law granted by congress" dosent make for a sexy title, or the opportunity to yet again go over the same redundant argument bush is crazy, hes the devil, what have you.

Now that the forces of good are in power, those wonderfully non corrupt, non crazy, non insane democrats I have no doubt the law that thier bodies passed that allowed him this right will be repealed instantly.

Oh wait, Im sorry there busy giving him more money to empower his evil endevors. :dizzy2:

Makes for a good read though, because its all bush, all the time.

One ring to rule them all... :wall:

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

---

Well Zak thats a unique perspective. MY point is that Bush didnt make a power grab, he excersised his right under the constitution. To date in the thread no one has disputed that fact.

All that aside there is real opposition to him in congress, this law could be revoked, repealed, or altered at any time to remove his ability to excersise the power.

You didnt mention that in your posts, you portrayed it as a "power grab". I understand the point your making, but when one continues to scream the same thing over and over again and unintentionaly embelishes the circumstances of the cause of screaming it detracts from the ability to have a rational discussion of the facts.

In the end, didnt the little boy who cried wolf die at the hands of the wolf?

Quote:

---

Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep.

---

OMG we agree. Hope this dont get us in trouble. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. At least IMO. I think Ron Paul is closer to that .

How can you not see it as a power grab? And Congress had nothing to do with it. The Constitution also says nothing about taking direct control of all three branches of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well Zak thats a unique perspective. MY point is that Bush didnt make a power grab, he excersised his right under the constitution. To date in the thread no one has disputed that fact.

---

This statement is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

You didnt mention that in your posts, you portrayed it as a "power grab". I understand the point your making, but when one continues to scream the same thing over and over again and unintentionaly embelishes the circumstances of the cause of screaming it detracts from the ability to have a rational discussion of the facts.

---

A valid observation doesn't become less believable because it is repeated. On the contrary, the repetition will hopefully make those who are slow at understanding it to finally comprehend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

In the end, didnt the little boy who cried wolf die at the hands of the wolf?

---

The comparison is irrelevant. Peter in "Peter and the Wolf" cried for the wolf when he knew there wasn't one present. Zak is correctly analyzing the threats associated with passing a law that goes against the constitution and gives the President legal power to declare himself dictator any time he finds it appropriate to do so. Bush, however, could be compared with Peter with this crying about WMDs, while being wrong every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

democrats for the most part are just as decieved (or unwittingly evil) as bush and cronies are. Its well past time for revolution in the united states, but our people are asleep. sleeping giant, indeed. our own declaration of independence says it is our national responsibility to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” and all that Founding Fathers speak, you know.

---

It may very well become necessary to find a way out of this deadlock, but as long as the majority is ignorant about the dangers and threats to the constitution at present, a revolution would be doomed to fail. Might be better to flee from the country if the law can't be stopped, because if the law is passed, many American citizens who have critisized the Bush administration at any time may be in great danger of oppression and persecution.

Quote:

---

This statement is incorrect.

---

Only in that no one has disputed it. Maybe he means no one with the power to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

This statement is incorrect.

---

I'll reread the thread, I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong.

Quote:

---

A valid observation doesn't become less believable because it is repeated. On the contrary, the repetition will hopefully make those who are slow at understanding it to finally comprehend.

---

Depends on how the repetition is framed

Quote:

---

The comparison is irrelevant.

---

This statement is arrogant, it would suggest you determine whom makes a valid point of compare and who dosent. When you become a moderator or Admin then say this all you like, until such time you reveal a rather hostile tone under some pretext of supposed superiority because you disagree.

One might even call your point irrelevant under those circumstances :yes:

Quote:

---

Peter in "Peter and the Wolf" cried for the wolf when he knew there wasn't one present.

---

Exactly, a power grab isnt present. I mis appropriation of power by congress might be, but we are all entitle to an opinion on that right Legio?

Quote:

---

Zak is correctly analyzing the threats associated with passing a law that goes against the constitution and gives the President legal power to declare himself dictator any time he finds it appropriate to do so.

---

I havent disputed his right to do so, only his pretext for doing so.

Quote:

---

Bush, however, could be compared with Peter with this crying about WMDs, while being wrong every time.

---

Sounds like a great subject for another thread Legio, why dont you start one ? :yes:

Have a wonderful day :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This statement is arrogant, it would suggest you determine whom makes a valid point of compare and who dosent. When you become a moderator or Admin then say this all you like, until such time you reveal a rather hostile tone under some pretext of supposed superiority because you disagree.

---

You point out no similarity between the parable and the matter at hand. Under such circumstances, it appears irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly, a power grab isnt present.

---

This action fits within the definition of coup d'etat, and as such it is a power grab by definition.

I was unaware there had been a change in government. :help:

Zak':

You're not really calling for a revolution, you know. Revolutions occur when peoples rights, lives, and property are substantially threatened. Our revolution would never have gotten off the ground without the Stamp Act, the attempt to strictly enforce the Navigation Act, The Quartering Act, and -- possibly the greatest threat -- Britain's attempt to close off the frontier. Without those pressures, the words of Rousseau and Locke alone would not have done the trick. You point to the classic "panem et circum" reasons why the US population is not closer to revolt -- with some truth -- but you need to acknowledge the basic issue: life in the USA is pretty good and there is substantial opportunity for most individuals to improve things for themselves and their families along with a good deal of personal freedom to speak/do/think. Such conditions do not lend themselves to revolution.

The change between the republic of the founders and the republic we enjoy today is substantial, but it was accomplished in smaller well-meaning steps since the inception of the republic. There is simply no impetus for dictatorship -- a crisis profound enough that might lend itself to such has only existed twice in our history -- ACW and the 1930s. Both resulted in relatively powerful presidencies (each of whom contributed significantly to the cumulative changes that have altered the republic) but neither man approached dictatorial power though both held the office until their deaths. The key difference between the repulbic of then and the one of our present has been the slow aggrandizement of political power into the hands of the federal government and its bureaucracy at the expense of the power of the several states.

Some of the Steps:

Marshall's assumption of the role of "arbiter of the Constitution" on behalf of the Supreme Court. Article III notes that:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article III, Constitution of the United States

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

---

Marshall changed this to appellate review that defines the constitutionality of a law or some aspect of the process of justice.

Jefferson -- the man who wrote that allowing a President to stand for more than one term was an invitation to dictatorship -- calmly standing for his own second term (Jefferson accepted Washington's 2-term limitation on the office) and using the break-up of the federalists as a means to guarantee his party's domination of the Presidency for decades. No evidence exists that suggests that Burr was pursuing any "party" ambition when he shot Hamilton, but Burr did thereby end the career of the one person who might have brought the federalists back to power. Jefferson used this to his advantage.

Lincoln's declaration of secession as being unconstitutional, thereby binding any state to permanent membership in the federal system. While in office, Lincoln used the absence of Southern representation to pass the Homestead Act, Federal support for the development of a transcontinental railroad, the secession of West Virginia from Virginia (this being deemed constitutional as apparently only the federal constitution was binding in perpetuity) and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by fiat.

Theodore Roosevelt's assumption of the role on behalf of the federal government as primary regulator for all aspects of commerce within the United States. The initial goal was to prevent trusts and monopolies and to minimize child labor (good goals), but the result was to change the federal government from the key regulator of INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL commerce into the regulator of ALL commerce.

Then we have the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th ammendments (Direct Election of Senators). Both well intentioned, but both resulting in a huge increase in federal power at the expense of the several states.

Franklin Roosevelt, of course, expanded the role of government into nearly every facet of the economy and went about crafting programs that made the federal government the "safety net" for almost everything. Since that era, our states have been little more than districts for counting votes -- all the real decisions are made in Washington. Subsequent administrations-- almost without exception -- have heightened this effect (only Reagan didn't and he only by degrees).

A far cry from where we started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I was unaware there had been a change in government. :help:

---

A more specific term for this particular type of coup is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

our "republic" today is mired in collaboration with the arms industry and other corporations, the amount of immorality is staggering because of the corporate-government collusion. the federal government is far too strong and the executive in paticular. there are many parallels between both the rise of Nazisim in germany in the 30's and modern-day America, as well as the Roman Republic and the loss thereof. Yes, life is good, which is why the people are sleeping. No one seems to care these days about our Constitution and our founding ideas. America is supposed to be a beacon of liberty, equality, and justice in the world, the last best hope for mankind. Instead today it is a nation of gluttony, expansionism, and exploitation fo the poor around the world for our own benefit and the wealth of a small handful of men. we must stop our oppression of the downtrodden of the war, and return to the ideas on which we were founded upon philisophically. A nation of goodness and hope, unrestricted ideas and immigration, unfiltered science and literature, a vibrance of the finer nature of mankind.

Instead we are today a nation of hatred, greed, and fearmongering using such broad and hazily defined demons as "illegals" or "terrorists" , but its the same as in past decades where those demons were "communists" or "socialists", Our Great Enemy which keeps the people dumb and afraid.

Its time we woke up, far past time.

So that is how I can achieve greatness, is by educating the people!

The President has to dissolve the Congress, and that has not occured yet, and probably will not occur.

I suggest everyone read a good book by Card, titled 'Empire'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

our "republic" today is mired in collaboration with the arms industry and other corporations, the amount of immorality is staggering because of the corporate-government collusion. the federal government is far too strong and the executive in paticular. there are many parallels between both the rise of Nazisim in germany in the 30's and modern-day America, as well as the Roman Republic and the loss thereof. Yes, life is good, which is why the people are sleeping. No one seems to care these days about our Constitution and our founding ideas. America is supposed to be a beacon of liberty, equality, and justice in the world, the last best hope for mankind. Instead today it is a nation of gluttony, expansionism, and exploitation fo the poor around the world for our own benefit and the wealth of a small handful of men. we must stop our oppression of the downtrodden of the war, and return to the ideas on which we were founded upon philisophically. A nation of goodness and hope, unrestricted ideas and immigration, unfiltered science and literature, a vibrance of the finer nature of mankind.

Instead we are today a nation of hatred, greed, and fearmongering using such broad and hazily defined demons as "illegals" or "terrorists" , but its the same as in past decades where those demons were "communists" or "socialists", Our Great Enemy which keeps the people dumb and afraid.

Its time we woke up, far past time.

---

Yes but America has rarely lived up to these principals. In the 1850's their was an large anti Irish immigration movement which was several times worse then those today. Last time I checked their were no mobs roaming the streets burning Mexican homes, churches, bussnesus ect. We still have freedom of speach, religion and for the most part (if your not a terrorist) Habes Corpus. Overall rights are good. Yes there is some problems that need to be sorted out such as the censureship of global warming studies and wiretapping. But these can be dealt with in the framework of the system. Now is no the time for a revolution were the blood of countless soliders will flow in the streets, but a time for a Pericles. A person who will lead a series of reforms to bring america closer to her ideals.

I would prefer a Cimon, but Pericles would work.

Gee. The conspiracy. :dizzy2:

Zak: America never was what its ideal is, I assure you that. And we didn't do too bad. President Bush is not powerful enough to carry out a coup d'etat anyway, even if for some reason he wants to. Even the Republicans in Congress are distancing themselves from Bush en mass, and the military in general is quite disgusted with the Administration. Bush's problem in finding a war czar is illustrative of that. The things that trouble me are the wiretapping and kidnapping people against their will to hold in Guantanamo or Syria, Gonzalez' practice of partisanship where partisanship ought to be the least of all concerns, the Judicial branch. Many of these have precedents and similar events that happen before. America wasn't a dictatorship back then either.

As I never understood -- and will never understand, I suspect -- the position of "States' Rights," I find the massive increase in Federal power at the expense of State power to be a non-issue. It's a government to government transfer of power, not people to government, mostly, and I don't really find that troubling. True, government at State level can be more of an innovative policy practice ground than Washington, but it can also be the very opposite: Federal intervention was downright necessary to pull the Southern States out of their anti-Civil Rights misery ("white/majority tyranny") in the 50's and 60's after all.

if Bush was rational I wouldnt be worried..but he's criminally insane. He literally believes Jesus is going to come and rule the world for a thousand years and is trying to make it happen by pushing Armaggeddon. Even aside from all that, he's an imbecile surrounded by very influential fascist nuts..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

As I never understood -- and will never understand, I suspect -- the position of "States' Rights," I find the massive increase in Federal power at the expense of State power to be a non-issue. It's a government to government transfer of power, not people to government, mostly, and I don't really find that troubling.

---

The problem is the emphasis on bureacratic inertia that such centralization brings. Moreover, since there is less of a sense of "distance" state level representatives tend to be more responsive to their constituencies and somewhat less prone to domination by incumbents (I know, only somewhat).
I agree that this shift has not been to withdraw power from the people, but by concentrating it all in the hands of a few thousand it serves to reinforce the "distancing" of the typical voter.

Zak, you are incorrect. Bush 43 will quietly transfer power at Noon EST on 20 January 2009. Whoever succeeds him -- quite possibly a democrat -- will thank him and then give a speech that repudiates a goodly percentage of everything Bush has tried to accomplish (bordering on 90% if a dem). Bush will quietly sit there and then fly back to Crawford. You're free to bet on the dictatorship if you wish, but I'll take that bet and give you reasonable odds.

Since our ex-presidents are getting more involved of late, Bush may (at last after his father passes) make nasty comments about his successor thus confirming Carter's break with tradition. That's about as far as it will go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

if Bush was rational I wouldnt be worried..but he's criminally insane. He literally believes Jesus is going to come and rule the world for a thousand years and is trying to make it happen by pushing Armaggeddon. Even aside from all that, he's an imbecile surrounded by very influential fascist nuts..

---

:inquisitive:

I hate Bush too, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The problem is the emphasis on bureacratic inertia that such centralization brings. Moreover, since there is less of a sense of "distance" state level representatives tend to be more responsive to their constituencies and somewhat less prone to domination by incumbents (I know, only somewhat).
I agree that this shift has not been to withdraw power from the people, but by concentrating it all in the hands of a few thousand it serves to reinforce the "distancing" of the typical voter.

---

Good arguments. However, I think this change is also, to a point, a necessity. America is too big to be responding to the hundreds or even thousands of constituencies that constitute local interests. At the very least it would've been fifty -- far too large for America to remain as united culturally and politically as it is today. It is also driven by the increased power of the Executive -- in itself a necessity, I think, as foreign policy usually demands a decisiveness and cohesion not usually afforded on Congress' debate floor or, worse yet, the State representatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The problem is the emphasis on bureacratic inertia that such centralization brings. Moreover, since there is less of a sense of "distance" state level representatives tend to be more responsive to their constituencies and somewhat less prone to domination by incumbents (I know, only somewhat).
I agree that this shift has not been to withdraw power from the people, but by concentrating it all in the hands of a few thousand it serves to reinforce the "distancing" of the typical voter.

Zak, you are incorrect. Bush 43 will quietly transfer power at Noon EST on 20 January 2009. Whoever succeeds him -- quite possibly a democrat -- will thank him and then give a speech that repudiates a goodly percentage of everything Bush has tried to accomplish (bordering on 90% if a dem). Bush will quietly sit there and then fly back to Crawford. You're free to bet on the dictatorship if you wish, but I'll take that bet and give you reasonable odds.

Since our ex-presidents are getting more involved of late, Bush may (at last after his father passes) make nasty comments about his successor thus confirming Carter's break with tradition. That's about as far as it will go.

---

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could happen, and that's bad enough. Americans need to be more on guard with this sort of thing. Games and bread while we lose our freedom, you know.

Games and Bread didn't lose Rome. They kept Rome under control. The Romans lost their freedom when they loved the dictator Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could happen, and that's bad enough. Americans need to be more on guard with this sort of thing. Games and bread while we lose our freedom, you know.

---

Well, you and I are in complete agreement as to the stupidity of the tacit decision of many (most?) of our fellow citizens to choose ignorance of things political, historic, or economic. We share some agreement about the "drift" away from the original form of our constitutional republic. We diverge a lot after that, but that's healthy for a republic as well.

Thanks I know a little bit about Rome :book: I'm just making an analogy to get people thinking. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Games and Bread didn't lose Rome. They kept Rome under control. The Romans lost their freedom when they loved the dictator Caesar.

---

They never had the Freedom...

The Roman Senate was a bunch of rich old powerful men; that is to say, the Aristocracy. They were never in any real meaning Representatives of the people of Rome. Caesar oppressed the aristocrats, not the people -- at least, not any more than other leaders. His murderers were Senators after all...

That's true in some regard but the Republic had a history of public involvement, political consciousness, and public dissent as old as the casus romuli itself. There was a suprising amount of social mobility and there were broad freedoms for Roman citizens (men anyway) and many chances to partake in public life and policy decisions. It wasnt until the rise of Octavian that most of these discourses were irrevocably changed.

Ut OH here we go OFF TOPIC

Quote:

---

Yes there is some problems that need to be sorted out such as the censureship of global warming studies

---

Those studies for or against? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Those studies for or against? :inquisitive:

---

How about both? ~;)

I'm not sure there was a ban though...?

Couldn't find the exact case I saw before but these are simmiler.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...tists.bush.ap/
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...7-hansen_x.htm