To: grapeape
He is going to take complete power to ensure separation of powers?? 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.
22 posted on
05/22/2007 12:17:24 PM PDT by
wideawake
("Pearl Harbor is America's fault, right, Mommy?" - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
To: wideawake
Ok, I'll accept your rational for the DC scenario. Cool.
The problem is that he can retain that power if this "(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" Happens.
I am not some nut guys. I have been posting here for years.
Turn this situation around. What if this would have come out of the Clinton White House? I am sure it will when Hillary gets elected.
24 posted on
05/22/2007 12:22:55 PM PDT by
grapeape
(Republican blue-bloods are not from the northeast anymore)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson