Bush's Power Grab

[Azarkon]

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?

[astr0creep]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

He's Palpatine!

[Meshugger]

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.

[Gorth]

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 >_

[Tigranes]

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.

[Tale]

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

[Enoch]

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.

[taks]

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

[Guard Dog]

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 June 22, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Azarkon]

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.

[Gorgon]

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.

[Guard Dog]

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.

[Tigranes]

I see, some context is good to have.

 

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

[Guard Dog]

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.

[Enoch]

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 June 23, 2007 by Enoch

[Calax]

... 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.

[Walsingham]

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.

[Gorgon]

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 June 23, 2007 by Gorgon

[taks]

... 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

[Calax]

... 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 June 24, 2007 by Calax

[Guard Dog]

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.

[Calax]

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

[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.

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.

 

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

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

 

taks

[metadigital]

rest assured, my son will not suffer as you have, and he'll be able to distinguish fact from reality in the end.

 

Sorry taks, just had to do it.

[Guard Dog]

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.