[RenegadeRick]

Boy it has been awhile since I have been around. Sorry to return with such bad news.

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

Read the freaking link below...

Discuss.

My opinion is that everything that man says is a lie. If the law says something in the title it actually does the exact opposite. I fear for the future of our constitutional government. What does he care anyhow? It's "just a goddamned piece of paper!"

 

[moff_quigley]

linky no worky

 

[Echo]

"I promise to relinquish this power as soon as the crisis is over!"

 

[BadDNA]

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2007/05/18/bush-anoints-himself-as-the-insurer-of-constitutional-government-in-emergency/

This link works.

Here's the directive itself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

 

[LordOpie]

well, only 1.5 years left of this jerkoff and it looks like the leading repub candidates are a whole lot more human and intelligent than this idiot, so that's good.

 

[Silver]

well, only 1.5 years left of this jerkoff and it looks like the leading repub candidates are a whole lot more human and intelligent than this idiot, so that's good.

Does it matter? Do you really think that any candidate, from either party, is going to roll back powers? The unitary executive is here to stay, unless Bush gets impeached before his term is up.

 

[LordOpie]

Does it matter? Do you really think that any candidate, from either party, is going to roll back powers? The unitary executive is here to stay, unless Bush gets impeached before his term is up.

I do think power will roll back. Moderates (either party) may not voluntarily give up the power, but by appointing moderate Justices and by having a moderate Congress, they "force" the power control back to a reasonable level and a moderate PotUS will accept cuz he's not as insane as Bush.

 

[Silver]

I do think power will roll back. Moderates (either party) may not voluntarily give up the power, but by appointing moderate Justices and by having a moderate Congress, they "force" the power control back to a reasonable level and a moderate PotUS will accept cuz he's not as insane as Bush.

It's pretty clear the only chance of that working is to have a Democrat as president, due to the makeup of the Supreme Court these days...

 

[LordOpie]

...due to the makeup of the Supreme Court these days...

Granted, it will take a while cuz some of those bastards need to retire or die off. Or maybe you're right, they'll pull power if a Dem takes office.

 

[MikeD]

If the President wasn't ever expected to lead the government in times of crisis, it's news to me. If he, in fact, did not do this, he'd be slammed by his critics for a failure of leadership. And people's interp. of this plan generally comes down to whether they like the current man in office or not...if a democrat had written this, the same blogs would likely applaud the foresight and action-mindedness, in contrast to the Bush/Brownie/Katrina model.

So now it's in writing, and it's Orwellian delusions for all. Now, there IS cause for examining this stuff carefully, and I applaud anyone who's actually read this, because more people should be interested in what's going on. Dictators have taken power permanently after 'temporary' measures from time immemorial...hell, that's what dictator means. But I don't see anything in the writing of this that acutally subverts constitutional government.

Of course, on second thought:

Crisis response is inherently an executive function. However, checks and balances exist in structure of the gov't under the Consitution...does this policy overstep executive bounds and unduly constrain/restrain/dictate policy to other branches of the government?

Gotta get to a meeting now and will review the policy more later.

 

[LordOpie]

If the President wasn't ever expected to lead the government in times of crisis, it's news to me. If he, in fact, did not do this, he'd be slammed by his critics for a failure of leadership.

It just sounds like he would be directly in-charge instead of allowing the people who he appointed to various positions to do their job.

Ironically, we'll probably have another hurricane disaster this season since there's no El Nino to keep things tight. Does that mean his office will personally oversee emergency efforts instead of FEMA?

What's the point of having various departments if he won't let them do their job?

 

[stinkyboy]

Chicks dig them!

 

[LordOpie]

Is that a vibrator on the grass?

 

[reflux]

Should we have an over/under on how long it takes for Bush to anoint himself Gawd?

 

[MikeD]

It just sounds like he would be directly in-charge instead of allowing the people who he appointed to various positions to do their job.

Ironically, we'll probably have another hurricane disaster this season since there's no El Nino to keep things tight. Does that mean his office will personally oversee emergency efforts instead of FEMA?

What's the point of having various departments if he won't let them do their job?

I'm failing to see where it says this...it talks about coordination between branches of government. It's most bureaucrat-babble, frankly, and I think it's a pretty weak policy. Then again, it's a framework, not a specific operation plan, but still, I don't see much concrete in there.

It's a contradiction in the Bush administration that baffles me. They deify executive power and worship it like a cult, and blame every failure on the 'bureaucrats' and 'red tape' and the like. Then, they add layers of bureaucracy around themselves to provide insulation...by bloating the bureaucracy further, they give themselves more people to blame. (See the 'war czar.' WTF??) So I guess it's not contradictory after all. It's just cowardly and deceptive (but politically expedient).

I'm going to look up the document that this emergency plan replaced. We'll see if it's just as nefarious.

 

[MikeD]

Is that a vibrator on the grass?

Looks solar-powered. She must be planning quite the afternoon...probably daydreaming about me again.

 

[MikeD]

The previous policy isn't available...WH never released it, or a summary. So we'll never know if Clinton was preparing himself to be Dictator for Life:

 

[Kihaji]

It just sounds like he would be directly in-charge instead of allowing the people who he appointed to various positions to do their job.

Ironically, we'll probably have another hurricane disaster this season since there's no El Nino to keep things tight. Does that mean his office will personally oversee emergency efforts instead of FEMA?

What's the point of having various departments if he won't let them do their job?

FEMA was scarier. A non-regulated government body that could suspend the Constitution indefinitely in an emergency situation is a hell of a lot more scary than an elected official who can be impeached/removed.

Not saying either is ideal, but let's be honest, one of the largest whines from Katrina was that the various agencies had no coordination and no single person to make the hard decisions, and most layed the blame on Bush.

 

[MikeD]

Did I miss FEMA disappearing somehow? This policy doesn't in any way put Bush more or less in charge of any individual agency...or create or do away with any agencies...it tasks him with coordinating their efforts and names some subordinate appointees to assist.

That's pretty much bureaucratic slather for "do nothing or do everything," of course, but he's already the top man in the chain of command within the executive branch, so those in charge of the executive agencies tasked with maintaining 'essential functions' are already reporting to him.

I don't see anything in the policy authorizing him to, say, suspend Congress and make emergency laws in its stead. Of course, given Bush's history, hell, I wouldn't think it's outlandish to think he could try something like that in a true emergency. But that wouldn't be Consititional...and it'd be up to the other branches of government, and failing that, the populace, to check such a move. (Hopefully including a military that would heed its loyalty to the Constitution over the Commander-in-Chief...)

 

[Silver]

Not saying either is ideal, but let's be honest, one of the largest whines from Katrina was that the various agencies had no coordination and no single person to make the hard decisions, and most layed the blame on Bush.

Bush made an easy decision: Let the poor darkies drown.

I was in ****ing Mexico at the time on the Pacific Coast and I saw on tv that a huge hurricane was bearing down on New Orleans.