Jump to content

Bush's Power Grab


Azarkon

Recommended Posts

To be perfectly honest, I would've expected more discussion about this sort of thing, so I'm starting to wonder whether there's something I'm missing here. Still, I've been sitting on this for a while and haven't had much time to research or ponder it, so I'm just going to throw it out in hopes of evoking some response. Just so I don't misrepresent the info, peruse these sources:

 

The article can be found here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....CLE_ID=55825%20

 

A video interview with the author on C-SPAN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ

 

I'm not going to draw any conclusions, since, like I said, it feels a bit unreal, particularly since there's been no major news buzz about it. Well, what do you think - nothing of concern, or is Bush really making a power grab?

There are doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i don't think that Bush would actually enforce such a law, but i do find it appaling that such a law exists for future presidents.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists terrorists.

 

It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!

 

It does have a familiar ring to it. Only one word needed to be replaced >_

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really means that the determination of the conditions in which the president shall assume completely dictatorial powers is up to the president himself. A tsunami could wipe out a few thousand people in India or something, and Bush could say that the tsunami could strike America, at any time, anywhere (next to water). Of course, he'll need something more plausible than that to prevent a mass insurrection, but it's still a frightening law, and I don't know much about the American government so I have no idea how this was passed either.

 

And wonderfully, no major network has picked it up, though it was passed May 9. Is Worldnetdaily respected or widely read? I haven't heard of them before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to know that Chuck Norris supposedly writes for WND.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mountain from a molehill. Here is the actual text of the directive. A few points:

 

--This is a directive issued by the President, not a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Thus, it cannot give the Executive Branch any power it doesn't already have. By definition, a Directive cannot supercede or "negate" an act of Congress like the National Emergency Act.

--The directive does supercede a similar directive that Clinton signed in 1998. Frankly, I think it's kinda shocking that something like this has gone so long without being changed. It's not as if there haven't been intervening events that might lead us to re-evaluate how the government operated in a national emergency.

--The summary that Azarkon linked seems to suggest that, under this directive, the President can order states, localities, and private parties around. Upon examining the actual text, it only mentions coordinating emergency plans with these parties.

 

I'm no friend of the Bush administration, and his attempts to aggrandize the powers of the executive with respect to the other branches of government are quite troubling to me. But it's ridiculous to suggest that this is the first step in some kind of coup. I had never heard of World Net Daily before, either, and based on this link, I can say that it's not a respectable news source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WND is an extremely conservative "news" source, and their bias is well known.

 

presidents have always had some sort of power such as this. lincoln suspended habeas corpus, for example, during the civil war. it's only a shock to those that refuse to learn its history sees this as an opportunity to bash bush. i'm not surprised, btw, that WND would carry it, as they are at the very least critical of _all_ government.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinions on the abilities and abuses of the federal government are well know here, and this does not scare me. As Enoch said, it's much ado about nothing.

 

As for WND, the only good thing about that site is it has a lot of links to great editorials and op-eds but anything it passes off as news should be treated as highly suspect. The guy that runs that site, Joseph Farah is one of those people who run around in a panic seeing menace in every shadow.

Edited by Guard Dog

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mountain from a molehill. Here is the actual text of the directive. A few points:

 

--This is a directive issued by the President, not a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Thus, it cannot give the Executive Branch any power it doesn't already have. By definition, a Directive cannot supercede or "negate" an act of Congress like the National Emergency Act.

--The directive does supercede a similar directive that Clinton signed in 1998. Frankly, I think it's kinda shocking that something like this has gone so long without being changed. It's not as if there haven't been intervening events that might lead us to re-evaluate how the government operated in a national emergency.

--The summary that Azarkon linked seems to suggest that, under this directive, the President can order states, localities, and private parties around. Upon examining the actual text, it only mentions coordinating emergency plans with these parties.

 

I'm no friend of the Bush administration, and his attempts to aggrandize the powers of the executive with respect to the other branches of government are quite troubling to me. But it's ridiculous to suggest that this is the first step in some kind of coup. I had never heard of World Net Daily before, either, and based on this link, I can say that it's not a respectable news source.

 

Let's hope you're right. It's difficult to pin point the reason for issuing this directive now, though. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the context of the Civil War break out; the Iraq War, by comparison, has been going on for a while and doesn't seem to justify this sort of domestic directive. Does the White House think that another attack is imminent, or is Bush just trying to push through change that would favor future presidents in similar situations? It's hard to tell.

There are doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WND is an extremely conservative "news" source, and their bias is well known.

 

presidents have always had some sort of power such as this. lincoln suspended habeas corpus, for example, during the civil war. it's only a shock to those that refuse to learn its history sees this as an opportunity to bash bush. i'm not surprised, btw, that WND would carry it, as they are at the very least critical of _all_ government.

 

taks

Yes, but so far constitutional rights have only been suspended in times of crisis, or times of just plain hysteria.

 

What about this war on terror deal then, is that going to go on forever ?. That would make the temporary rollback, which as you say has precedent, be in effect permanent.

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WND is an extremely conservative "news" source, and their bias is well known.

 

presidents have always had some sort of power such as this. lincoln suspended habeas corpus, for example, during the civil war. it's only a shock to those that refuse to learn its history sees this as an opportunity to bash bush. i'm not surprised, btw, that WND would carry it, as they are at the very least critical of _all_ government.

 

taks

Yes, but so far constitutional rights have only been suspended in times of crisis, or times of just plain hysteria.

 

What about this war on terror deal then, is that going to go on forever ?. That would make the temporary rollback, which as you say has precedent, be in effect permanent.

Actually, IIRC the supreme court ruled ex post facto that Lincoln did not have the authority to do that. You won't be seeing that happen again. Look, I realize Bush is not the best President we've ever had. In fact I would probably classify him in the lower part of the middle. But after next year he will be gone and I think it's obvious he wields little influence over congress now. In 2009 we will have a new President and although I do not know who it will be, I can tell you when their term is up everyone will be happy to see them go. Thats just how it is here.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, some context is good to have. :ermm:

 

But if all that is the case, what does this new directive change, effectively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what it changes but if I read it correctly (Enoch is much better qualified to answer this than I am) it simply states that in the event of a disaster where federal aid in invoked the federal government will run the aid effort.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what it changes but if I read it correctly (Enoch is much better qualified to answer this than I am) it simply states that in the event of a disaster where federal aid in invoked the federal government will run the aid effort.

To know what it changes, I'd have to take a look at the prior directive it superseded. That document doesn't appear to have been publicly released (which suggests even more strongly that there's nothing insidious in this new document-- it there were, it wouldn't have been publicized). I'd imagine that the new version simply adjusts for the fact that there is now a Department of Homeland Security, and hopefully adjusts based on some of the lessons learned from the response to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

 

For general information, here is the wiki article on Continuation of Operations Plans in the government.

Edited by Enoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Hasn't our current president been using what he determines to be "executive powers" to broaden the power of the executive branch to the point where he shoots down certain bills because they infringe on what HE thinks is his right as leader of the executive branch. I remember her was at least one instance where there was a bill proposed to put a reign on bushes military fisticuffs, but he said it wouldn't be constitutional because he's the cmdr in chief of the military and thus has almost full and unfettered control of the military.

 

 

of course it's late so I'm not exactly sure about this.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mountain from a molehill. Here is the actual text of the directive. A few points:

 

--This is a directive issued by the President, not a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Thus, it cannot give the Executive Branch any power it doesn't already have. By definition, a Directive cannot supercede or "negate" an act of Congress like the National Emergency Act.

--The directive does supercede a similar directive that Clinton signed in 1998. Frankly, I think it's kinda shocking that something like this has gone so long without being changed. It's not as if there haven't been intervening events that might lead us to re-evaluate how the government operated in a national emergency.

--The summary that Azarkon linked seems to suggest that, under this directive, the President can order states, localities, and private parties around. Upon examining the actual text, it only mentions coordinating emergency plans with these parties.

 

I'm no friend of the Bush administration, and his attempts to aggrandize the powers of the executive with respect to the other branches of government are quite troubling to me. But it's ridiculous to suggest that this is the first step in some kind of coup. I had never heard of World Net Daily before, either, and based on this link, I can say that it's not a respectable news source.

 

You da man.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WND is an extremely conservative "news" source, and their bias is well known.

 

presidents have always had some sort of power such as this. lincoln suspended habeas corpus, for example, during the civil war. it's only a shock to those that refuse to learn its history sees this as an opportunity to bash bush. i'm not surprised, btw, that WND would carry it, as they are at the very least critical of _all_ government.

 

taks

Yes, but so far constitutional rights have only been suspended in times of crisis, or times of just plain hysteria.

 

What about this war on terror deal then, is that going to go on forever ?. That would make the temporary rollback, which as you say has precedent, be in effect permanent.

Actually, IIRC the supreme court ruled ex post facto that Lincoln did not have the authority to do that. You won't be seeing that happen again. Look, I realize Bush is not the best President we've ever had. In fact I would probably classify him in the lower part of the middle. But after next year he will be gone and I think it's obvious he wields little influence over congress now. In 2009 we will have a new President and although I do not know who it will be, I can tell you when their term is up everyone will be happy to see them go. Thats just how it is here.

How about the imprisonment of Japanese and Japanese-American nationals during ww2, the hunt for forgein 'agitators' following the war with spain, Maccarthyism. There are certainly more examples of civil rights suspension than Lincoln. Now imagine you lot elect Guliani, the war on terror isen't going to end with Bush.

 

It may turn out to be temporary, and people will look back at aspects of the war on terror as yet another one of these episodes of limited civil rights, but the jury is still out.

Edited by Gorgon

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Hasn't our current president been using what he determines to be "executive powers" to broaden the power of the executive branch to the point where he shoots down certain bills because they infringe on what HE thinks is his right as leader of the executive branch.

uh, that's a constitutional power of the president. he can veto any bill he wants and is not required to provide a reason. in other words what HE thinks is all that matter.

 

I remember her was at least one instance where there was a bill proposed to put a reign on bushes military fisticuffs, but he said it wouldn't be constitutional because he's the cmdr in chief of the military and thus has almost full and unfettered control of the military.

no kidding. the president is the commander in chief. congress cannot restrain him (much).

 

do they even teach the constitution in schools anymore? sorry calax, i'm not trying to be mean, it's just that these are things you should have learned in the 6th or 7th grade if you went to school in the US. if you did not attend school here, apologies, but you should do well to learn now.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Hasn't our current president been using what he determines to be "executive powers" to broaden the power of the executive branch to the point where he shoots down certain bills because they infringe on what HE thinks is his right as leader of the executive branch.

uh, that's a constitutional power of the president. he can veto any bill he wants and is not required to provide a reason. in other words what HE thinks is all that matter.

 

I remember her was at least one instance where there was a bill proposed to put a reign on bushes military fisticuffs, but he said it wouldn't be constitutional because he's the cmdr in chief of the military and thus has almost full and unfettered control of the military.

no kidding. the president is the commander in chief. congress cannot restrain him (much).

 

do they even teach the constitution in schools anymore? sorry calax, i'm not trying to be mean, it's just that these are things you should have learned in the 6th or 7th grade if you went to school in the US. if you did not attend school here, apologies, but you should do well to learn now.

 

taks

no actually I was referring to the fact that in a newspaper article recently he wouldn't veto as much as simply say "only I can do that" as he kept expanding the executive branches power and played upon the hysteria and paranoia to override civil liberties. Hell, now he's trying to say that his own office is immune to oversight when it comes to classified intelligence.

 

Also I was unaware that bush and his cronies had repealed the war powers act.

Edited by Calax

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no actually I was referring to the fact that in a newspaper article recently he wouldn't veto as much as simply say "only I can do that" as he kept expanding the executive branches power and played upon the hysteria and paranoia to override civil liberties. Hell, now he's trying to say that his own office is immune to oversight when it comes to classified intelligence.

 

Also I was unaware that bush and his cronies had repealed the war powers act.

 

The hole gets deeper and deeper. Alright Calax, exactly what civil liberties do you think have been overrun? When and where did Bush say the executive was immune to oversight with respect to intelligence. Both halves of congress has intelligence comittees and all members are "in the loop."

 

Bush repealed the war powers act????? Do people tell you these things or are you just making them up? The executive branch cannot repeal anything. That is a legislative function and the President does not legislate. Only congress can do that and it will be a cold day in hell before that happens no matter who is in office.

 

There are many and more reasons to dislike Bush and he has not been a good President to say the least. But the things you are posting do not make sense.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no actually I was referring to the fact that in a newspaper article recently he wouldn't veto as much as simply say "only I can do that" as he kept expanding the executive branches power and played upon the hysteria and paranoia to override civil liberties. Hell, now he's trying to say that his own office is immune to oversight when it comes to classified intelligence.

 

Also I was unaware that bush and his cronies had repealed the war powers act.

 

The hole gets deeper and deeper. Alright Calax, exactly what civil liberties do you think have been overrun? When and where did Bush say the executive was immune to oversight with respect to intelligence. Both halves of congress has intelligence comittees and all members are "in the loop."

 

Bush repealed the war powers act????? Do people tell you these things or are you just making them up? The executive branch cannot repeal anything. That is a legislative function and the President does not legislate. Only congress can do that and it will be a cold day in hell before that happens no matter who is in office.

 

There are many and more reasons to dislike Bush and he has not been a good President to say the least. But the things you are posting do not make sense.

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/235644.html

 

and I was being facetious about my last sentence

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no actually I was referring to the fact that in a newspaper article recently he wouldn't veto as much as simply say "only I can do that" as he kept expanding the executive branches power and played upon the hysteria and paranoia to override civil liberties.

you clearly said he thinks HE can veto things simply because HE wants to, which is his right as president. your words were:

 

he shoots down certain bills because they infringe on what HE thinks is his right as leader of the executive branch

this is unequivocally ONLY the president's job, and the fact that you don't understand this is the point that i made. anyone past the 6th/7th grade _should_ be able to understand why your statement is senseless. i call it a failure of the US public school system as they are more concerned with teaching some freakish ideal that has nothing to do with reality. i'm sorry you must suffer, though i suppose ignorance is bliss. rest assured, my son will not suffer as you have, and he'll be able to distinguish fact from reality in the end.

 

Hell, now he's trying to say that his own office is immune to oversight when it comes to classified intelligence.

it is.

 

Also I was unaware that bush and his cronies had repealed the war powers act.

they haven't. it is, in my opinion, unconstitutional in the first place, but that's another story.

 

oh boy, a left wing _opinon_ article is somehow evidence, nay proof, of an otherwise baseless argument.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/235644.html

 

and I was being facetious about my last sentence

 

Taks is right Calax. The article you linked is an op-ed opinion piece. And a rather shrill and uninformed one at that. The ramblings of a pundit with an axe to grind is not a news story and generally should not be held up to to back an opinion you cannot otherwise defend.

 

Ok I'll buy that about the war powers quip but based on the rest of your post it was hard to tell.

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...