Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 19, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    One might ask exactly what he has in mind to precipitate such a situation.
     
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    wow.
    well i shouldn't be surprised, and i kinda saw this coming.
    i'm a bit worried about 08.
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Might help to actually read the directive. Not much there to worry about, really.
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #5
    Does this mean under the correct circumstances he'd be investigating himself and vetoing his own legislation/overriding his own vetoes, and declaring it unconstitutional.
     
  6. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #6
    Does kinda make you wonder how far Bush and Cheney would go to retain their power in the face of impeachment.

    Or might we add how far their benefactors might go to insure the continuity
    of corruption.

    One by one the pillars of this adminstration are being taken down, their neocon agenda
    a total disaster and they have been rendered powerless by a defiant Congress.

    Martial law suspends our Constitutional rights indefinitely once the president invokes those powers.

    A lot can happen between now and Nov 2008.
     
  7. biturbomunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Location:
    cali
    #7
    this is scary... what kind of "emergency" is the administration anticipating?
     
  8. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    a 20% approval rating?
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #11
    Read it or not, people will believe what they want to believe.

     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Who needs to read it? It's so much more fun to speculate from a position of total ignorance. After all, that was the WH approach to Iraq...
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Correction: They did not speculate from the position of total ignorance, they acted from the position of total ignorance.

    Now, what were we talking about again?
     
  13. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #14
    The morning of 9/11, a few of my coworkers witnessed COG in action.

    Not one word from the authorities about what we should do or where to go, but a substantial traffic jam of black SUV's and other government vehicles
    waiting to turn off onto route 601 heading into Mt. Weather.

    No one knew ( in theory) when or if the attacks would end, yet we were
    being abandoned.

    Knowing this and then seeing what has happened in the aftermath of Katrina, one thing is clear. In the event of a major catastrophic emergency, will be left to fend for ourselves.
     
  14. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    i have. let's review the purpose of the document:
    it sounds/seems comprehensive, as does the entire document. until i re-read the part above about establishing a "comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government" and realized that the legislative and judicial branches are barely even mentioned.

    so it strikes me as a power grab by the executive branch in the case of "an emergency", which is so vague as to include just about anything. under this, bush could have enacted this plan when katrina hit and, apparently, not bothered with the 2006 midterms at all.

    alarmist? perhaps, but i don't trust this administration w/ the powers enumerated to it, much less with additional powers it's always seeming to take.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    It's not totally clear what the directive actually does mechanically, but I don't see any references to extraconstitutional powers in the document. In fact it seems to me that the directive's purpose is to assign the President the responsibility of coordinating reestablishment of Constitutional government in the wake of a disruption of the federal government due to disaster or attack. Katrina, for one, was not disruption of the federal government. Even 9/11 wasn't. I imagine directives of a similar nature have been in effect since the beginning of the Cold War.
     
  16. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #17
    Thats true. Its called the Continuity of Operations Plan.

     
  17. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    there have been, yes. for a time, it fell to FEMA, and then to DoHS once it absorbed FEMA. this order changes it from a department to a single man.

    and that's interesting in and of itself, since this single man is now charged with overseeing "orderly succession", which, if necessary, means that man is dead or incompetent. since the constitutionally mandated succession should automatically kick in, i fail to see why this order is "suddenly" necessary.

    i disagree with your assessment here:
    ... insofar that the order, as it's worded, i believe would include such events.

    again, i'm taking this document in context of the administration which issued it -- an administration i not only don't trust in the least, but has demonstrated a willingness to twist words beyond all reason to suit its own ends (case in point: habeous corpus apparently not being constitutionally guaranteed afterall).
     
  18. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #19
    Just a reminded of the powers granted to FEMA in a declared national emergency.

    Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:


    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Of course it should, and I don't see how the directive changes any of that. Again, I'm not entirely certain I see the exact purpose in this directive but I think assumes that the ordinary administrative mechanisms are inoperative due to disaster or attack.

    I don't trust them either, but the talk of any president, even this one, deciding with the stroke of a pen to suspend national elections because of a hurricane is patently absurd IMO. Can we even imagine the magnitude of the Constitutional crisis such a thing would set in motion? It would be an A-bomb in comparison to the nibbling around the edges of separation of powers we've been witnessing, much of which has been beaten back by the courts. In fact, it would amount to nothing short of a putsch.

    Trust them or no, such predictions are way too wild-eyed for me. And just you wait and see: the next president, no matter which party he or she belongs, will happily accept these responsibilities.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    As was done during World War II. All strategic industries were essentially nationalized for the duration.
     
  21. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #22
    We must keep in mind that Bush and Cheney have pushed the limits of
    executive power every way they can.

    They have shrouded themselves in secrecy and deliberately avoided any paper trail which could be used as evidence against them.

    They should not be trusted and I certainly do not trust either of them.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    I'm not saying you're wrong here, but how closely have you read it? Remember, no one thought much of the innocuous language in the Patriot Act allowing the WH to bypass Congress in appointing USAs without appointment. That seemed like a relatively harmless bit, until we saw the exploit being built around it.

    Are you positive there are no such loopholes here?
     
  23. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #24
    I'm certain the language of this document has been deliberately drafted to
    broaden his power rather than limit what he can do and when.

    We have to remember that Nixon also attempted something like this
    when he felt threatened by impeachment.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    I'm not completely positive about much of anything, but I'm not perpetually tearing my hair out, either.

    To use your example, the U.S. attorneys loophole (which was created by Congress, not the president), was closed. This is in any event extremely small change compared to what some are suggesting, which is that the president can now take full charge of the government through extraconstitutional powers he's given himself, literally whenever the wind blows. I believe it's incumbent on those who'd make this highly fantastical argument to back it up, not on me to prove that it could not possibly be so.
     

Share This Page