Does NSPD 51 mean what I think it does? Is the president taking over the entire federal government?

whitehouse ^ | 5-22-07 | grapeape

[grapeape]

Seems the president wants the option to takeover the entire federal government in case another disaster hits the US. I do not see why the entire federal government needs to be taken over in case one part of the country is hit by a crisis?

Look at this one "(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means 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" This could mean anything.

This one right here is really weird "(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." Is he saying the same thing that other despots have said when taking over their governments? A republican? I don't get this at all. The Republican Party has come a long way from '94 and I do not like it at all.

It seems to me that the old blue bloods have taken over and they are from my home state. What do ya'll think? Am I going over board here?

[grapeape]

Just keep in mind that Hillary may be our next president and she will want the same power.

[WhiteGuy]

Maybe it is time to consider why the founders felt seraration of powers was so importent.

[Dixie Yooper]

It’s a New World Order, get in line and stand at attention.

[RightWhale]

Tinfoil isn’t working. Check the seams; sometimes the seams open up.

[blam]

Another reason (besides immigration) for a REVOLUTION.

[wideawake]

This one right here is really weird "(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

The President of the United States in charge of the Federal Government? How bizarre!

Next thing you know there will be some sinister plot to designate the President as "Commander-In-Chief" of our armed forces!

Oh tyranny, dost thy audacity know no bounds?

[grapeape]

I really love this one here: "(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders."

They post it on the internet and then declare it secret? What is wrong with these guys? If someone asks them a question then are they going to have an option to say they can not comment on it because it is secret? What is going on here?

[wideawake]

Another reason (besides immigration) for a REVOLUTION.

Uh-huh.

While you're up, could you bring me a coffee on your way back from the "REVOLUTION"? Cream, two sugars. Thanks.

[grapeape]

Doesn't’t the congress and Judicial branches have something to do with this? Is this not a repeal of the constitution for emergency sake? That is what I was asking.

[CJ Wolf]

“The President of the United States in charge of the Federal Government? How bizarre!”

Isn’t it? How’d that happen?

[wideawake]

(1) The directive itself is public information, and is correctly published on the internet.

(2) Some of the annexes to the directive are classified, presumably because they contain information about security procedures.

[r9etb]

Seems the president wants the option to takeover the entire federal government in case another disaster hits the US. I do not see why the entire federal government needs to be taken over in case one part of the country is hit by a crisis?

I remember listening to the debates on the Pacifica Radio network, back before the '88 elections.

A couple of loony-left nitwits were declaiming in wide-eyed awe and fear about this very same thing. "He could take over the whole country!"

Not saying that you are a loony-left nitwit, but you're certainly in interesting company.

[WhiteGuy]

truly frightening

[grapeape]

No, read that again. The whole directive has been protected. Why? We are all reading it and it is on they net. Why even put this in there?

[wideawake]

The directive makes it incumbent upon the President to ensure that the legislative and judicial branches of the government remain intact and functioning.

It says:

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

He is required by the directive to make sure that government proceeds constitutionally. There is no mandate in the directive for abolishing or subsuming legislative and/or judicial responsibilities.

[grapeape]

I seem to remember that we were complaining about similar things during the clinton presidency. I remember it very clearly. If the smart-@sses on FR don’t remember the cow we had over abuse of power then, maybe it is time for me to find another party. I really am beginning to believe that the Republican party is filled with old school blue bloods.

[wideawake]

No, read that again.

You read it again. The directive is not classified.

If it were classified, why would it specifically reference one of its own annexes as not being classified and others as being classified?

[grapeape]

Think about what you are saying.

He is going to take complete power to ensure separation of powers??

Sounds like something out of V for vendetta, or Star Wars 3, or.. any other dictator. What have we become if this is what I think it is. Why is the president going here? What is the point?

[grapeape]

“protected from unauthorized disclosure.” They published it on the internet. What are they talking about? They don’t want it printed on the back of a camel? They can say it but we can’t talk about it? They want to retain the option of....what? Why even do this?

[Republicus2001]

Should George Bush be given amnesty?