Tweet
"Suspend" might be too strong of a word here, but....the 'insurer of constitutional government' points in that general direction. Read on....
Under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20, the President and the DHS are authorized to override the constitutional government via declaration of a 'national emergency' without Congressional approval. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html. Such an emergency is construed 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."
For a second, consider the present situation as Bush described the looming 'economic disaster' last night on television. Now, factor in the several reports indicating an October Surprise by Al Qaeda. Further factor in that there is no description as to how what construes 'extraordinary' or 'severely affecting', and one begins to give more thought about how and when this could be used. Sharon Bradford Franklin , the senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think-tank that promotes constitutional safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize unchecked executive action. "http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/02/white_house_revises_post_disaster_protocol/
Consider for a moment that, whether these economic/terror problems exist in reality, the vantage point one must look from is that of the Oval Office. More on this in a moment.
Continuing on, provision 2E of the directive states that:
Even if one does not subscribe to sinister conspiracy theories about this administration, which I do not, a fair reading of the above still brings into question the scope (and probably the duration; how long will 'continuty coordination' last?) of this 'hand-over' of authority. The possibility that it could be used for ill-concieved means is very slim, but, that said possibility does exist is of concern to me. The very creators of this document, who appear to be the most deceptively idiotic persons to walk through the White House, are those who would significantly benefit from such a move.
Answers to some of my questions, I'm sure, can be answered in the two Annexes that have yet to be made public, even to relevant government officials who, according to Wikipedia, have not yet been able to review these additions.
Back to the definitions of 'extraordinary' and 'severely affecting'. It was not but one week ago today that a special meeting between senators and the Fed represenatives occured, with which the next morning, one attending representative said that,
There have been several other statements that have been made by involved representatives that would make anyone go hmmm
. Would what has happened over the last two weeks constitute 'extraordinary' and 'severely affecting'? My hunch is that if it does not, the minimal requirements to conclude on these defintions will likely occur in a very short period of time. I say this because this morning I read a statement Ron Paul made regarding the economic situation:
but see:
Would it not be ironic if Bush pushed us to emergency conditions haphazardly with which he could enforce NSPD-51? 
At any rate, the situation of the economy is certainly not good, and even those who support the bailout now argue that bailouts cannot keep happening indefinitely. It has to bottom out: like a fracture, a doctor will break the bone so that it heals stronger. Economy aside, again, I want to point out the October Suprise being discussed in relation to a new Al Qaeda attack. I cannot say for sure that there is any credibility to that conclusion, and I'm not sure how reliable such reports are given that 'wolf' has been cried too many times in the past. But, if there was any chance that they would, the present situation our country faces would multiply the effects of terrorism exponentially. I myself, no expert on terrorism, would have to at least give it a 50/50 that Al Qaeda strategists have discussed doing something within the next four weeks.
Last, Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Const. says of the president..."...he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper...". With respect to McCain's suspension of his campaign and a call for other senators including Obama to return to the Capitol to address the matters, I would not conclude that McCain already believes he has Article II Powers.
BUT! With what appears to be a speed-bump in the progress to get bills passed on this economic concern, it could certainly be used. If Bush does so (which perhaps he won't), he would have at least satisfied the requirements for NSPD-51 under 'extraordinary'. Perhaps this was the impetus to draft NSPD-51 in such a fashion so that a satisfaction of one concludes a requirement in another.
While I am not an expert on these matters of interpretation, and while I am sick of hearing the conspiracies that Bush will declare himself a dictator, I am reasonably confident that if the economy collapses in on itself, there is a decent chance that while he won't make himself dictator, there will be some power-grabbing. The title of the thread is not a question to my fellow MS'ers, but a question Bush or his advisors would ask incident to an economic and/or terrorist attack. My question to you is, what do you think they would say in response in consideration that the powers ceded to them by Congress and the Supreme Court would enable them to do so?
Under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20, the President and the DHS are authorized to override the constitutional government via declaration of a 'national emergency' without Congressional approval. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html. Such an emergency is construed 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."
For a second, consider the present situation as Bush described the looming 'economic disaster' last night on television. Now, factor in the several reports indicating an October Surprise by Al Qaeda. Further factor in that there is no description as to how what construes 'extraordinary' or 'severely affecting', and one begins to give more thought about how and when this could be used. Sharon Bradford Franklin , the senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think-tank that promotes constitutional safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize unchecked executive action. "http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/02/white_house_revises_post_disaster_protocol/
Consider for a moment that, whether these economic/terror problems exist in reality, the vantage point one must look from is that of the Oval Office. More on this in a moment.
Continuing on, provision 2E of the directive states that:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comitywith respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics/Underline mine.)
Informally, comity means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as,"the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another." It is hard to say the extent of who is going to be giving what to which branch, but in consideration that the Bush Administration has added further power to thier branch, it is safe to reasonably assume it would take its power from Congress and likely the Supreme Court. Even if one does not subscribe to sinister conspiracy theories about this administration, which I do not, a fair reading of the above still brings into question the scope (and probably the duration; how long will 'continuty coordination' last?) of this 'hand-over' of authority. The possibility that it could be used for ill-concieved means is very slim, but, that said possibility does exist is of concern to me. The very creators of this document, who appear to be the most deceptively idiotic persons to walk through the White House, are those who would significantly benefit from such a move.
Answers to some of my questions, I'm sure, can be answered in the two Annexes that have yet to be made public, even to relevant government officials who, according to Wikipedia, have not yet been able to review these additions.
Back to the definitions of 'extraordinary' and 'severely affecting'. It was not but one week ago today that a special meeting between senators and the Fed represenatives occured, with which the next morning, one attending representative said that,
that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”
. Would what has happened over the last two weeks constitute 'extraordinary' and 'severely affecting'? My hunch is that if it does not, the minimal requirements to conclude on these defintions will likely occur in a very short period of time. I say this because this morning I read a statement Ron Paul made regarding the economic situation:
The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess![lists]
There goes your country.
There goes your country.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush, saying "our entire economy is in danger," urged Congress to approve his administration's $700 billion bailout proposal.
At any rate, the situation of the economy is certainly not good, and even those who support the bailout now argue that bailouts cannot keep happening indefinitely. It has to bottom out: like a fracture, a doctor will break the bone so that it heals stronger. Economy aside, again, I want to point out the October Suprise being discussed in relation to a new Al Qaeda attack. I cannot say for sure that there is any credibility to that conclusion, and I'm not sure how reliable such reports are given that 'wolf' has been cried too many times in the past. But, if there was any chance that they would, the present situation our country faces would multiply the effects of terrorism exponentially. I myself, no expert on terrorism, would have to at least give it a 50/50 that Al Qaeda strategists have discussed doing something within the next four weeks. Last, Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Const. says of the president..."...he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper...". With respect to McCain's suspension of his campaign and a call for other senators including Obama to return to the Capitol to address the matters, I would not conclude that McCain already believes he has Article II Powers.
BUT! With what appears to be a speed-bump in the progress to get bills passed on this economic concern, it could certainly be used. If Bush does so (which perhaps he won't), he would have at least satisfied the requirements for NSPD-51 under 'extraordinary'. Perhaps this was the impetus to draft NSPD-51 in such a fashion so that a satisfaction of one concludes a requirement in another. While I am not an expert on these matters of interpretation, and while I am sick of hearing the conspiracies that Bush will declare himself a dictator, I am reasonably confident that if the economy collapses in on itself, there is a decent chance that while he won't make himself dictator, there will be some power-grabbing. The title of the thread is not a question to my fellow MS'ers, but a question Bush or his advisors would ask incident to an economic and/or terrorist attack. My question to you is, what do you think they would say in response in consideration that the powers ceded to them by Congress and the Supreme Court would enable them to do so?
Comment