Posted on 05/22/2007 11:29:27 AM PDT by 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?
wideawake’s got it right. The directive ensures that a constitutional government continues in the event of catastrophic attack, etc. (like a nuke in DC).
That is not what it says.
Nowhere does it say that the President "takes complete power."
It says that he is supposed to lead the activities of the Federal Government in ensuring constitutional government.
Scenario: DC is destroyed, the President, all the Congressmen and Supreme Court justices are lost.
Directive would then oblige the Presidential successor to make sure that orderly elections are held in each Congressional district to restore Congress, and then nominate judges before this newly empaneled Congress.
Who authorizes disclosure of the directive?
The President.
If it is on the President's website, then he has authorized its disclosure.
They can say it but we can’t talk about it?
We're talking about it right now, smart guy.
Is this a power granted the president under martial law?
http://members.tripod.com/~Sidlinger/ml.html
Now comes Dubya with this order, which I believe is a simplified and somewhat more palatable replacement for Clinton’s policy (which begs the question, why now, after six years?).
The constitution does not provide absolute power to the executive under any circumstances, and that’s good, because there would be much opportunity for abuse of such a provision. But one has to be a realist about things and have contingencies in place nonetheless. I don’t believe this society would survive a prolonged period of anarchy. Some of us have our own plans for what we would do and where we would go if TSHTF, but here there are plenty who are clueless or otherwise unable to take care of themselves. These people would be better served by an extra-constitutional plan to restore order than by no plan at all, sad but true.
As for me, I am blessed to be in a temperate zone with ample habitable wilderness within 30 minutes of home, and I am confident I could live off the land any time of year, at the same time making use of other skills and equipment to network with kindred folk worldwide. So I’ll just be temporarily out of the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.