Org Mobile Site
Thread: 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.
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
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".
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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 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.
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.
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.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.
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!!!!
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
To the barricades!
Did someone say Barricade!To the barricades!
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."
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.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."
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 therepublican democrat congress is destroying liberty.
I agree with Lemur on this, a lot of fear mongering from liberals here.
I would appear as though the
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.
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.
Indeed. And as our beloved document says, to paraphrase, when government stops working, its time to change it by any means neccesary.
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?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...
I'll join with my apples!
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. 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.
We definately need another
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
Disclaimer - I didn't really read the OP completelySSSSSHHHHHHHH, 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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.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.
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. 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.
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"
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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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 ?
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.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.
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.
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 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.
through a goose as soon as his term is up), but isn't it possible?Single Sign On provided by vBSSO