New Executive Order Grants Extraordinary Powers To The Presidency

[Kyronea]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825

LAW OF THE LAND
Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


President Bush
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job 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.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined 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."

Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.

Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.

But the new directive 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, Corsi says.

The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.

It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.

The White House declined to comment on the directive.

Also: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Now, I am of two minds on this:

On one hand, it makes perfect sense. In time of war with an intermediate nuclear power, such as, say, China, there is the potential for Congress to be wiped out or otherwise harmed, and as such the President would need the authority to act without having to consult Congress, as there would be no Congress to consult. A similiar plan was developed in secret by President Clinton.

On the other hand, it makes me incredibly angry to think that such power could be handed over to the President in time of a "national emergency," which is not defined very well. As a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment on the basis of defending oneself against a government that may become oppressive, this scares me. Of course, common sense and reason comes into play: if Bush truly wanted to do something insane like this he would have done so before, and if he tried it now he probably wouldn't get anywhere near as far as some might fear, but still....the potential for abuse is certainly there. And I do not trust ANYONE who goes into the office of the President and does not remove this, or at least rewrites it to define national emergency in a way that prevents this from being abused.

Sadly, I doubt whoever goes into office, be they Democrat, Republican, or what have you, will do so.

[nightmare975]

What's next? Bush transforming this country into an empire?

I can see it know...

Unlimited POWER!

[Lord J Esq]

This goes back to the days of the "shadow government" that we heard about after September 11. The guiding powers in the Bush administration honestly have no regard whatsoever for the rule of law or the co-equivalent functionality of government. To them, these things are an active obstruction to their idea of a continuous, responsive government--of, by, and for their narrow right-wing interests. Kyronea has a point that executive power needs more autonomy in moments of swift crisis, but that unfortunately is not the bottom line of this sordid tale. This administration is like no other America has yet seen, and has no intention of upholding the democratic underpinnings of this country. Given a national emergency, Bush and his people would use this executive order to permanently warp even more power into the executive branch.

[nightmare975]

Wow, for once I must agree with you.

[Daniel Krispin]

Hmph. I have heard it said that the only thing WWII and the whole Nazi Party in Germany proved is that if it could happen in Germany, it can happen anywhere. I'm glad I'm Canadian. If your country turns Fascist, we'll have at least a day of freedom before your tanks roll across the border.

[Andryu]

hehe... Good point.
In my opinion such acts does only thing - intensify conflicts between countries. I'm European and the whole situation frightens me. With an idea of European Union we are trying not to let the history repeat itself, because we still remeber what the war means .
We should keep the peace at any price... USAs' policy does something opposing, doesn't it?

[Lord J Esq]

We should keep the peace at any price...

Fascinating.

[Kyronea]

Fascinating.

I hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Usually when someone talks about keeping the peace at any price, they are referring to some method of warfare.

Thing is, we're kinda ripe for a military strike if someone with a decent enough army--like, say, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and so on--decided to try taking us on. Even though we spend more than twenty times the money on our military as the next leading spender, we're strained dangerously close to the breaking point. Even if we brought all troops home right now, they'd all need at least nine months of leave before even thinking about being capable of going out on duty again, especially with serious major combat.

Of course, no war is likely due to the extreme interconnectivity of economies and trade and so on. We're so dependent upon each other that to cause a war for one would devestate all far, far worse than the Great Depression ever did. It'd make the Great Depression look like the recession of 2001.

One other thing though: the fact that Bush came out with this rather than keeping secret as his predecessor kept his secret suggests he's not going to try to pull a fast one and actually exercise it without truly just cause.

Unfortunately, due to the wording of "catastrophic emergency" something like another Hurricane Katrina could give him the opportunity to exercise this power, and given the seriously odd weather patterns all across the world this year--we've got about three inches of snow on the ground right now!--we may see another Katrina.

[Andryu]

I hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Usually when someone talks about keeping the peace at any price, they are referring to some method of warfare.

Thats not what I meant.
Considering our technological level (especially military) even a small conflict can bring another world war. Thats why governments should act carefully and try not to intensify such conficts.

However, I am aware of the role that USA military has in keeping peace.

We're so dependent upon each other that to cause a war for one would devestate all far, far worse than the Great Depression ever did.

I couldn't agree more, but remeber that the war always leads to economical development. (Only at first few months, though)

[CyberSarkany]

We should keep the peace at any price...

Fascinating.

We call it Appeasement Politic.

[Kyronea]

Thats not what I meant.
Considering our technological level (especially military) even a small conflict can bring another world war. Thats why governments should act carefully and try not to intensify such conficts.

Very true. We need a lot more diplomacy than has been exercised by the current administration of the United States. You can't just go around invading sovereign nations and pissing off allies: all you do is make the situation far, far worse.

However, I am aware of the role that USA military has in keeping peace.

Only when it suits the administration in power at any one time. Remember, for most of the last 60 years American military action has been mostly to counter Soviet military action, and while Russia is not the Cold War entity anymore, a lot of military action that continues today still follows that trend.

I couldn't agree more, but remeber that the war always leads to economical development. (Only at first few months, though)

For the nation winning, perhaps. For the losing nation, their economy is devestated, infrastructure ruined, and they generally end up extremely poor. Back at the end of World War II, the United States was the single most powerful nation in the world and, if it had chosen, could have taken over most of Europe without too much of a fight. I can't even begin to imagine what a full-scale world war with our current level of technology might do to any losing nation, or any winning nation for that matter.

Luckily, MAD prevents anyone from really using nuclear weapons. Nuclear weaponry these days is a lot more about having enough to employ MAD than actually using them against any other nation, and as such I am not worried about any sort of nuclear war barring a major resource shortage, such as Peak Oil being far worse than most predictions state.

[Andryu]

Remember, for most of the last 60 years American military action has been mostly to counter Soviet military action, and while Russia is not the Cold War entity anymore, a lot of military action that continues today still follows that trend.

I would rather say that a lot of American military actions are to keep influence in various areas.

Back at the end of World War II, the United States was the single most powerful nation in the world and, if it had chosen, could have taken over most of Europe without too much of a fight.

It might be, but remeber that at the end of WWII Great Britain was almost untouched and even Germans did not suceed in conquering Russia. Also France was in rather good shape, because of their Appeasement Politic. But still you might be right. (Anyway I'm Polish and my country was almost completly destroyed...)

I am not worried about any sort of nuclear war barring a major resource shortage, such as Peak Oil being far worse than most predictions state.

Very true. I must admit you are very thorough observer.