So I was just reading an article about Bush signing declarations about gaining emergency powers.
What occurred to me, is that I don’t think he has the power to wield them effectively. I think the country would splinter into civil war. I do not think he could control his generals and admirals. Local governments would resist him. The military that he would require to put to use to make it work is already exhausted and demoralized from his stupidity in Iraq.
What do you think?
Two different questions here. One, is Bush legitimately empowered by a given set of emergency conditions, to be determined at his exclusive discretion. No, no, a thousand times no, but the question is arguable, as the Constitution is an abundant playground for the interpretive mind.
The other, should such dire circumstance descend - would he be an effective leader given his epochal capacity for failure, and the skeptical mood of the public?
Not bloody likely.
You have two separate issues here.
Would local governments, etc., follow him in the event of such an emergency? Absolutely. Things are not that bad in this country, despite his (and Congress’s) low approval ratings, and people would clamor for central authority/aid in such an emergency.
Would he wield such powers effectively? No. He hasn’t wielded his regular powers effectively. His administration has proved its incompetence at every opportunity. Amazingly, he’s been able to show that, despite a generation of PR work that “Republicans (not Democrats) are the ones you want in charge in the event of a war,” that these Reagan-era Republican demigods (Cheney, Runsfeld, et al) SUCK at warfighting. So no Bush will not wield such powers effectively. The whole country will look like New Orleans.
Now, after 3-6 months of such incompetence, will local governments stop following him? Possibly, at that point. Especially if, say, he tries to take control of the National Guard troops, and make them go to another state/etc. to restore order when the home state’s Governor thinks that he/she can’t spare said troops from the local crisis.
EDIT: Ha! Just saw Elucidator’s somewhat similar thinking.
I just don’t see another Hurricane Katrina, or even another 9-11, causing a civil war. Sorry.
I don’t think he could wield a swizzle stick effectively.
I think Bush has the power to wield emergency powers effectively, since by that you seem to mean, the authority to have his mandates followed. I don’t think the country would splinter into civil war. I do think he could control his generals and admirals. Local governments would not resist him. The military would not be required to put to use to make it work.
Bush’s problem is that he fails to understand the connection between the power granted to him and the responsibility that is implied by that power. He has a history of taking extraordinary powers that were granted to him for the purpose of serving the country and diverting them to advance his own ideological agenda. He’s never seemed to grasp the concept that he is President of the entire United States of America and is supposed to be working for everybody and not just his supporters.
If the Klingons invaded Earth and occupied half the country and Bush was granted full authority over all levels of government and the power to rule by decree, his first thoughts would be something like, “I can finally abolish capital gains and inheritance taxes and appoint pro-life judges without interference.”
[QUOTE=mswas]
So I was just reading an article about Bush signing declarations about gaining emergency powers.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for this? Are these new ones or the ones we debated a few weeks ago? I’ve been in hospital and haven’t been keeping up lately.
[QUOTE=mswas]
What occurred to me, is that I don’t think he has the power to wield them effectively. I think the country would splinter into civil war. I do not think he could control his generals and admirals. Local governments would resist him. The military that he would require to put to use to make it work is already exhausted and demoralized from his stupidity in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
As others have said, two questions here. Could he wield them effectively? No, he doesn’t wield his normal powers effectively…he’s a pretty ineffective President by and large.
However, you seem to be saying that he wouldn’t be able to wield them at all…i.e. that the military would stop following his orders, that state and local governments would do the same. The term for this is either coup attempt or rebellion/civil war.
To answer that…no, it ain’t gona happen, the wet dreams of the left not withstanding. He’d be deposed by the process first…and I don’t see THAT happening in any reasonable series of events we could have between now and the blessedly short time left before his term is done.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
…the wet dreams of the left not withstanding…
[/QUOTE]
Just had to get that in there, huh, guy? The left being who, perzackly? Dennis the K calling for revolution? Hillary? Anybody?
Just in general. Not casting any aspersions your way 'luci (or toward Denis the Menace, or good ole Hillary). 
-XT
You know, I went to a lot of effort to get you off the “Straight To The Wall Come the Revolution” list.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So I was just reading an article about Bush signing declarations about gaining emergency powers.
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the same thing that was the subject of this thread?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Are you talking about the same thing that was the subject of this thread?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You know, I went to a lot of effort to get you off the “Straight To The Wall Come the Revolution” list.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW I’ve put in a good word for you also with the Libertarian board as well. Comes the revolution they won’t simply leave you out in the cold (we aren’t into putting people up against any walls you understand…the most you might get is a lengthy lecture that will having you WILL they’d shoot you afterward :)).
-XT
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]
In that case, I re-pose two questions from that thread that got drowned in a flood of hijacks:
How are these directives similar to, and how are they different from, previous administrations’ emergency plans?
Does a presidential directive continue in force from one administration to the next?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In that case, I re-pose two questions from that thread that got drowned in a flood of hijacks:
How are these directives similar to, and how are they different from, previous administrations’ emergency plans?
Does a presidential directive continue in force from one administration to the next?
[/QUOTE]
I thought #2 was sorta answered in that thread, sir.
In post #65 of the older thread, the document is quoted (Section 22 of NSPD 51) as indicating that it supercedes a similar, previous document dated Oct 21, 1998 (Presidential Directive 67).
Well, that implies that Presidential Directive 67 was considered to be in force up to and including the time the new Directive was signed by the current Prez, right?
I dont think it’s too much of a risk to assume that the new directive (NSPD 51) will remmain in force until the next President rewrites a new policy directive.
[QUOTE=mlees]
I thought #2 was sorta answered in that thread, sir.
In post #65 of the older thread, the document is quoted (Section 22 of NSPD 51) as indicating that it supercedes a similar, previous document dated Oct 21, 1998 (Presidential Directive 67).
Well, that implies that Presidential Directive 67 was considered to be in force up to and including the time the new Directive was signed by the current Prez, right?
[/QUOTE]
I know, I remember. Implies. I was hoping for something more definitive.
The relevance being, if this presidential directive makes any difference at all or gives the president any power he would not otherwise have – that might be inherited, automatically and silently, by Clinton or Obama or Giuliani or Romney or . . .
You get the picture.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I know, I remember. Implies. I was hoping for something more definitive.
The relevance being, if this presidential directive makes any difference at all or gives the president any power he would not otherwise have – that might be inherited, automatically and silently, by Clinton or Obama or Giuliani or Romney or . . .
You get the picture.
[/QUOTE]
Ok. I am thinking out loud here. These are directives written by the head of the Executitve Branch, for use/control of the Executive Branch. While I dont recall that Executive Directives are specifically laid out in the US Constitution, I dont think they are unConstitutional either.
Every US President in the last century or so has carried forward the policies and procedures of the outgoing administration, unless and until those policies and procedures can be reviewed. This ensures the smoothest possible transition between administrations, and seems to me like a reasonable approach to inheriting such a large bureaucracy.
The current President seemed to have waited 6 years before getting around to reworking the Continuity of Ops Directive of 1998. Wow. Either the Pres is distracted, or he thought the older Directive was “good enough” until now.
I don’t know what has changed, and why a new Directive was considered necessary. It could be that the current Executive Branch career bureacrats are “marking time”, trying to look like they are doing something useful, and to justify holding down thier jobs. But of course, that is nothing more than a guess, and I apologise for not offering something more concrete here.
I believe that whoever wins the next election will also continue the policies and procedures of the previous administration, unless and until they get around to reviewing that specific policy. (Iraq is probably going to be one of the first policies under the microscope.) I can’t see the next PotUS telling the Executive Branch to halt operations until they get new instructions from the top.
What has the new Directive changed? The older thread seems to come to the conclusion of “not much”. Do you disagree with that answer? Do you feel that not enough thought and research went behind that answer?
One of the things I noticed about the current atmosphere in US politics is that the opponents of whichever President is in office look at his actions with a critical eye, and look to see if their are hidden meanings in a particular action. (And that is what a lot of folks are doing here. Fair 'nuff. All of our politicians need to be watched.)
Since I don’t see much difference netween the last and the current Directive, I don’t find cause to be worried. That is why I thought someone in the Admin was “marking time”.