Bless you, sir, for interjecting a funny (ish kind of thing) into this. Because I always figured that Duhb would try something like this at some point. I hope to heavens that the military would not comply but polls have shown they are more conservative than liberal. How that translates to Duhb support, well, it is a spooky prospect. I’m hoping that in two years I remember laughing at this because it really turned out to be just a little blip in history.
Threads like this make it very hard to take some of the posters here seriously some times. This proposal would give Bush temporary, emergency powers that still probably would not be as significant as the stuff Lincoln did during the American Civil War.
I find it ridiculous that people who are usually expectedly paranoid and prone to tinfoil-hat-wearing (this is the SDMB, after all) will go as far as to actually believe references to the “enabling act” are remotely within the galaxy of reasonable discussion.
It might be worthwhile to actually link to the relevant document. Instead of BrainGlutton’s link to an opinion piece (clearly structured as such–not unbiased reporting.)
I find it unpleasant to point this out, but BrainGlutton’s opinion writer is either being intentionally dishonest or simply couldn’t be bothered to read the directive. Look at the following quote from BG’s article:
Okay, how dumb is this guy? The directive pertains to executive departments and agencies. People often fail to realize that the Executive Branch is a lot more than just the White House, and constitutionally the President has always been the final authority within the executive branch, while certain parts of the branch have been created by statute which gives them some degree of independence from the White House, theoretically (and constitutionally) executive power is vested in the President. (And no, this is not an invitation, BrainGlutton for round 200 on the discussion of the Unitary Executive Theory you seem to love so much)
The author is intentionally misleading when he says “the entire federal government”, the directive does not entrust Bush with leading the Congress or the Judiciary. It just spells out situations in which he will have more power within the executive branch–which by the way, is already SOP in emergency situations and there are multiple statutes that have been passed that effectively give the President great power during emergencies (many of these statutes arguably go further than this directive, which appears to functionally be an outline of the procedures the executive goes through during an emergency situation.)
From the directive itself:
So Diogenes is patently off base with this comment:
Imagine if we discovered the secret to immortality. This directive isn’t “trying” to give Bush absolute power" how can you make such a claim when in the directive itself it establishes that all three branches will continue to work under the framework of separation of powers. Absolute power and separation of powers are like oil and water, they don’t mix, you can’t have one with the other. Period, end of discussion.
As for the comment from BrainGlutton in regards to the part about ‘comity’ between the branches. The branches are supposed to check one another, but they are also supposed to work together. Checks and balances, separation of powers, is designed to restrain and slow government acts, not completely stop them there’s nothing that violates the views of Hamilton or Madison in the branches working together from time to time, especially in the case of a national emergency when there is already a statutory framework for increased government power and more authority given to the executive.
Why are you guys so worked up about a policy outline which is no threat to the separation of powers clearly and unequivocally not a license for absolute Presidential power is beyond me. If you oppose this stuff there’s statutes on the books you should have way bigger problems with. Every country in the world gives government greater power in times of great national crisis, if only for the reason that even if statute didn’t give government those powers, responsible government would wield them regardless in case of insurrection or overwhelming national interest (that’s precisely what Lincoln did, every illegal act Lincoln performed was only justified and legalized after the fact.)
Are you guys even remotely aware of the Federal statutes that deal with this sort of thing? Congress has passed several acts which can suspend significant liberties and give the President and the military vast power during times of national emergency or crisis. Many of these statutes have been on the books for over 120 years. What all of them share in common is, the President doesn’t get said emergency powers unless Congress explicitly grants them, even if this directive did give Bush absolute power (which it doesn’t, it actually explicitly states its intentions to protect separation of powers) a directive from the White House does not hold legislative force that would override prior statute passed by Congress.
Yes, except our military isn’t composed of unthinking jackbooted thugs who will cackle evilly as they run those tanks over helpless American citizens. Our military is composed of ordinary Americans whose capacity for evil is pretty much on par with all the other ordinary Americans.
Or to put in another way, George Bush can declare himself dictator and order the army to enforce his evil plan, that doesn’t mean the army will carry out such orders.
Are you imagining that Bush prepares this document, and the next time we get a hurricane uses it to establish himself as dictator? This document doesn’t make him dictator any more than the document I just wrote on a cocktail napkin makes me dictator. He can only be dictator when large numbers of people agree he is dictator and are in a position to use violence to enforce on the rest of us their belief that George Bush is dictator.
Now, what group is that? How many army divisions are going to turn traitor and make George Bush dictator? How many cops? How many FBI agents? How many governors, how many mayors, how many Senators, how many congressmen, how many judges? Three? Four? How many American citizens?
George Bush sitting in his office issuing orders isn’t a dictator unless those orders are obeyed. Why exactly do you imagine there are vast numbers of people willing to obey those orders?
I do not like or trust Bush, but does this not simply set forth a protocol that we would expect the president to undertake in a time of catastrophe? Is this document going to be put on a shelf so that Bush can whip it out in September when the next hurricane battery ravages the Southeast so that he can declare “I am the Decider” and order martial law over Seattle? Or is it more likely the directive under which the various departments managed by the Cabinet are going to be asked to provide specific plans in the case of a genuine emergency?
I think it would be useful to have definitions of the sort of calamity that his author envisioned triggering this action, but how is it different than what we would hope would happen in the event of the (extreme and improbable) scenarios found in Independence Day, Armageddon, The Day After, The Day After Tomorrow, or similar events?
How about "Iran shot down our planes that were illegally flying in their airspace. This means war! We also found out that Iranian Agents were making a big play against Israel in Lebanon! Elections are cancelled! We can’t let Iran gets nukes!
I’m just curious, what do you think being President means? His job is to coordinate and lead.
Another quote, from the end of the directive:
Man, that’s some scary stuff, this evil directive is so deceptive, it even explicitly states it cannot be construed as any way to interfere with military chain of command or existing law!
And:
Man, this is some devious, evil, sick shit. The President is trying to establish, with this “enabling act” a means of coordinating post-disaster executive acts, in such a manner as to provide continuity of our government? And to that end he’s creating a new title of “Coordinator” for this stuff, and that person is going to oversee the different Federal agencies working in cooperation following a disaster? What’s worst of all is the underlying goals of this devious, Machiavellian plan:
-
Preserving our Constitutional form of government and separation of powers
-
Continuing to provide essential Federal health and welfare services to the public
-
Provide visible leadership to the public in times of crisis
-
Protect the Constitution of the United States and its people against all threats foreign and domestic
What’s sickest about these evil goals, is they had the balls to state them openly. Even more devious was that addendum at the end which explicitly states this directive is to be implemented in accordance with the law! Dangerous and diabolical indeed.
Actually all the directive does is provide for greater than normal coordination between various Federal agencies in times of disaster. It also creates the position of National Continuity Coordinator, someone who will assist the President in providing for continuity of government following a major disaster.
This is entirely reasonable, especially considering we’ve had significant problems with different parts of the executive branch working together during emergencies. The “fourth branch” of government is generally held to be the bureaucracy. No one man can realistically control the Federal bureaucracy, it has statutory, effective, and traditionally independence from the President. During times of emergency the President has simply tried to establish clearer mechanisms for these varied agencies and bureaucrats to work together. We’ve seen them fail to do so following 9/11 and Katrina.
It also provides for establishing low-level policies which will lead to bureaucrats across the country being able to continue providing essential services without centralized control in times of emergency–it’s impossible to say what would happen for example if a nuclear strike hit Washington, DC. It could be days or weeks before the guy who runs the FBI’s office in Denver or the HUD office in Toledo will have clear leadership from above.
It explicitly states the implementation of this policy will be in accordance with existing laws. Last I checked “making Bush dictator” wouldn’t be in accordance with existing laws.
This is one of the not-vanishingly-rare-but-sort-of-uncommon times that I’m foursquare in agreement with the board’s conversative contingent. The OP’s linked article is hysterical hand-waving that the order in question shouldn’t even come close to inspiring.
Edited to add: And I was about two keystrokes away from sending it to Josh Marshall and Markos when I decided to actually read it in order to see what it actually said, just so it’s understood that I originally read the OP’s link with credulous eyes, too.
Well, I certainly don’t discount the possibility of a trumped up incident that attempts to stampede us into war with Iran. Except how exactly does “Elections are cancelled!” fit in with that?
Bush might (or might not, given his latest approval ratings (lowest of any president in history), I’d bet “not”) convince the nation that bombing Iran is neccesary. How does he casually elide that into “elections are cancelled”?
Seriously, suppose Bush wanted to cancel elections. How would he PRACTICALLY go about doing such a thing? A mere announcement by the President that elections are cancelled doesn’t cancel elections unless the rest of us shrug our shoulders and go along. The federal goverment doesn’t run the elections, state governments do. One can imagine Bush cancelling elections by firing poll workers and such, except the federal executive branch doesn’t pay for or have any authority over a single poll worker. Bush could concievably call in the generals and have them bombing Iran tomorrow morning, but he cannot cancel elections in a similar way.
I know, I know, Bush was going to cancel elections in 2002, in 2004, in 2006, and you’re hoping and praying that he’ll finally do it in 2008.
There seriously aren’t enough rolley eye’s in the world for this statement…
-XT
It really doesn’t matter how you, I or Congress interprets the directive. What matters is how Mr. Signing Statement interprets it. Of course, how much he could get away with does depend on you, me and Congress.
How’s that been working out so far, btw?
Well, despite the frantic hand wringing by some liberal types he hasn’t declared himself dictator, hasn’t made abortion a crime punishable by death, hasn’t cancelled our porn, hasn’t imposed a religious theocracy on us, hasn’t put prayer back into schools, hasn’t started using the poor for firewood, etc etc. In addition, despite being narrowly re-elected during a time of war (that he started), his popularity is at an all time low and the Republican’s have lost their largish majority in the house and senate…
All things considered, I’d say its working out pretty good so far. What do you think?
-XT
That’s universally true. If the President wants to ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, he can do so as much as he wants. There are tons of limits on Presidential power, but the only real limit is how much the people are willing to put up with before removing him from office.
Andrew Jackson, for example, ignored a Supreme Court ruling he didn’t like. He cleverly noted that (then Chief Justice) John Marshall could rule however he wanted, but he had no power to enforce his rulings, and unless the powers-that-be in government, or the people, stand up to stop the President, then Jackson is right.
However, this has been the situation for 218 years. The President (and the government at large) is governed by pieces of paper. A piece of paper can’t stop someone from say, ordering the Army to impose martial law, order the Army to stop elections et cetera. This isn’t a situation unique to Bush, it’s a situation unique to the President and even arguably the government at large. The only practical check on government power is internal dissent within the government or the people rising up and saying "no.’ We’ve established a constitutional framework and we’ve tried to instill respect for the rule of law into the country as a whole.
That’s why the hope is, if a President actually does try any of these things, the leaders in Congress, the Executive Branch agencies, and the military will instantly swoop down and remove him from power.
Last I checked elections haven’t been stopped once since Bush was elected, they haven’t even come close to being stopped. So there’s nothing that suggests to me the government at large is willing to “let it slide” if he suddenly cancels elections in 2008 and declares himself King.
Most of the time ludicrous theories and pronouncements get pretty heavily dismissed here. Yet this repeated canard about “Bush canceling elections” tends to get play, even from respectable posters. It’s honestly embarrassing.
The elections are cancelled bit was tongue in cheek.
I think that if he interprets this document as meaning that he gets to control the government if a sufficient disaster(to be determined by him) takes place, there just might be a spot of trouble on the horizon.
Paranoid fantasies of political persecution by Republican ogres run rampant on the SDMB.
In other news, scientists conducted a definitive study to find out where bears shit! The results, after this message from Tide.
Regards,
Shodan
I hope you are kidding here. If not…please explain how Bush could simply interpret the document to say he is in control of the entire government. Oh, I’m sure in his wet dreams at night he can do this…but in reality? How would he go about actually implimenting this?
Do none of you folks know about the whole ‘checks and balances’ thingy our government is founded on? Or is there some assumption that the other 2 branches of government AND the military (not to mention us citizens) are just going to go along with it…because we wuft Bush so much?? :dubious: Gods! Except for Truman I can’t think of a more unpopular president…and THIS is the guy who is going to take over??
-XT
You are such a good little German
Hard to believe, I know, but this same sort of thing seems to have popped up once or twice or thrice.
Some things just never get stale, and "OHMYGODBUSHISGOINGTOBEDICTATOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!’ is about six of them.
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s ask six years worth of a Republican controlled congress. They’ll tell us it means doing whatever the president asks of them.