King George To Assume Full Power?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by InLove

LOL, now we have to look for changes...

I'm glad I attached the text as it was on June 2nd.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Pathless

And now for the truly frightening!! Come see the monster, the elephant in the room--will the fat lady sing?? Is the show about to be over?? Come one, come all, and see King George claim his rightful place as Theocratic King of the Apocalypse--that is, given any natural disaster or act of terrorism.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

What? you ask. Yes, me too. What?? What is this? How does something like this happen, and just what is a "Presedential Directive" anyway??

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sorry, I don't like to be a fear-monger, but this is just too messed up, y'all. Somebody pinch me.

Read more.

This is nothing new. They have similar Executive Orders that date back to Clinton. For example Executive Order 12919 provides for the government to utilize civilian transportation, food supplies, energy resources, and other strategic material in the event of a national emergency.

Seems to me that this current EO is an attempt to better consolidate governmental resources in order to prevent the type of confusion and imcompetence that occurred with Katrina. It is also consolidating federal, state, and local governments to establish better lines of communication and cooperation in the event of National Security emergencies. This is long overdue.

I don't think it violates the Constitution, nor jeopardizes the checks and balances, but rather ensures their continuance, as para 5(a) states:

"Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government"

This is all hyped up to what it's not.

[Faithfulservant]

I believe its a step towards the new world order a one world government and its eventual acceptance by the people of this country. I love you guys please know that.. but I believe universalism and "all paths lead to God tolerance" is leading us towards accepting a one world religion and Im not saying that universalism is that one world religion. Im just saying.. all these baby steps towards are easing the way towards an acceptance of something that 50 years ago would never have been considered.

So Im not surprised by any of this.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Dondi

This is nothing new. They have similar Executive Orders that date back to Clinton. For example Executive Order 12919 provides for the government to utilize civilian transportation, food supplies, energy resources, and other strategic material in the event of a national emergency.

Well, I'm obviously no expert, but I'd say that similar orders date way farther back than Clinton. The current model (even though each president tends to call these directives by different names) was actually implemented by Nixon, but it really goes all the way back to George Washington and the Thanksgiving proclamation. It's just from Truman through today, there have been more. Clinton's were quite controversial, and I agreed more with some (such as environmental and labor issues) than I did with others, which I choose not to go into here.

Originally Posted by Dondi

I don't think it violates the Constitution, nor jeopardizes the checks and balances, but rather ensures their continuance, as para 5(a) states:

"Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government"

No, it actually doesn't illegally infringe on the Constitution (yet), so far that I can see. However, I think it does have the potential to usurp the other two branches. I'm sorry, but I am looking at the track record of this administration. I can't help but suspect that this is either an empty nod toward the concerns of Congress and the people, or an attempt to take advantage of what is supposed to be a safeguard, imperfect as it is. Have past EO's even mentioned anything like this? (I really don't know.) But the executive branch is supposed to have authority over the executive departments, right? So, is Bush now saying that the executive branch will now assume authority over the others? I'm confused. I'm suspicious. I'm upset at what I have been seeing, and I guess I just wonder what's up next? I realize that there are certain powers inherent in the presidency, particularly in military operations and such, but like I was saying before--I have just never seen a situation quite like the one going on right now. It is difficult for me to articulate.

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I believe its a step towards the new world order a one world government and its eventual acceptance by the people of this country. I love you guys please know that.. but I believe universalism and "all paths lead to God tolerance" is leading us towards accepting a one world religion and Im not saying that universalism is that one world religion. Im just saying.. all these baby steps towards are easing the way towards an acceptance of something that 50 years ago would never have been considered.

So Im not surprised by any of this.

Okay. I'm a little bit lost here. I can't relate Bush to universalism in religion. He (or whoever is pulling the actual strings) may be desirous of a universal political agenda, and may be using religious backing toward that goal, but wouldn't that be under the guise of Christianity rather than a general Universalist theme? I'm sorry--I am just having a difficult time understanding. I know what you mean by the slick political agenda that is featured in endtimes scenarios, and how it could very well be brought about in an insincere universalistic-style purporter of "peace" , but I don't see the present administration in this light. (And as an aside, there are just so many different ideas about what universalism is, that I get confused as to which one is being referred to in any given conversation.) Anyway, if you would like to expound, I'd listen...just can't guarantee I'll agree or even understand.

But I'm trying.

InPeace,
InLove

[Faithfulservant]

Okay. I'm a little bit lost here. I can't relate Bush to universalism in religion. He (or whoever is pulling the actual strings) may be desirous of a universal political agenda, and may be using religious backing toward that goal, but wouldn't that be under the guise of Christianity rather than a general Universalist theme? I'm sorry--I am just having a difficult time understanding. I know what you mean by the slick political agenda that is featured in endtimes scenarios, and how it could very well be brought about in an insincere universalistic peace leader, but I don't see the present administration in this light. (And as an aside, there are just so many different ideas about what universalism is, that I get confused as to which one is being referred to in any given conversation.) Anyway, if you would like to expound, I'd listen...just can't guarantee I'll agree or even understand.

I dont think any of us regular people know how it works in politics. I believe our president is a tool and is being used for a means to an end.

I can see that you misunderstood me.. I was calling this a step in what will be in the future.. the fact that this has happened with minimal uproar shows that we are complacent or apathetic in what our govt does.

I brought up universalism to support my view that we are hurtling very quickly into the end-times. A one world government led by the anti-christ and a one world religion with the anti-christ being worshipped as God.

[InLove]

Thanks, Faithfulservant.

Well, I definitely agree on a couple of points. I do believe there is more than meets the eye when it comes to what is really behind the workings of government(s), and also that the general population is largely unaware of how things really work. Maybe I'd better leave the rest for another discussion sometime.

InPeace,
InLove

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by InLove

No, it actually doesn't illegally infringe on the Constitution (yet), so far that I can see. However, I think it does have the potential to usurp the other two branches. I'm sorry, but I am looking at the track record of this administration. I can't help but suspect that this is either an empty nod toward the concerns of Congress and the people, or an attempt to take advantage of what is supposed to be a safeguard, imperfect as it is. Have past EO's even mentioned anything like this? (I really don't know.) But the executive branch is supposed to have authority over the executive departments, right? So, is Bush now saying that the executive branch will now assume authority over the others? I'm confused. I'm suspicious. I'm upset at what I have been seeing, and I guess I just wonder what's up next? I realize that there are certain powers inherent in the presidency, particularly in military operations and such, but like I was saying before--I have just never seen a situation quite like the one going on right now. It is difficult for me to articulate.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the Constitution. The powers of the Presidency are limited, and designed as such. The framers knew what they were doing when they charted the Articles. If anyone has the powers to that you think the President has, it is Congress:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Emphasis mine]

Compare to the powers of the President:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The president cannot declare War, nor can he form Treaties without the consent of Congress. And among the checks and balances is the power of Congress to file formal impeachment on any president who abuses those powers. The checks and balances are there. (I fear congress far more than I fear the presidency).

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Perhaps you need to go back and read the Constitution. The powers of the Presidency are limited, and designed as such. The framers knew what they were doing when they charted the Articles. If anyone has the power to that you think the President has, it is Congress:

[Emphasis mine]

Compare to the powers of the President:



The president cannot declare War, nor can he form Treaties without the consent of Congress.

Maybe not in the ideal. But when the whole government is nothing but a bunch of yes men to the puppet masters of King George then these noble ideals become meaningless.

TE

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Maybe not in the ideal. But when the whole government is nothing but a bunch of yes men to the puppet masters of King George then these noble ideals become meaningless.

TE

Congress is NOT a bunch of yes men. In fact, that is why we have a bipartisan Congress. The Democrats aim to get us out of Iraq, and have frustrated efforts of the Bush Administration.

And it doesn't just go along party lines. Just last night, the White House-backed Immigration Bill was struck down by the Senate 50 nays to 45 yeas. If you look here, you'll see that the voting was mixed, with many Republicans (Bush's party) voting nay. In fact, there has been increasing reservations among Republicans about how Bush is overseeing this war. Unfortunately, no one yet has a solution to the dilemma we are in.

Bush only has 1 1/2 years left in his term. And he has to deal with a Democrat controlled Congress for that rest of that time. How much power do you think he will have under those conditions in that amount of time?

This is nothing. Wait until we elect a Democratic President.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

This is nothing. Wait until we elect a Democratic President.

For threee decades we had a significant Dem majority in the Senate and House...and during that time a few Dem Presidents. The Republicans enjoyed a slim majority for a short time...Today the party platforms and lines are so weak and undefined that the titles are becoming meaningless.

The Bush family was gearing toward quite the run, with Jeb and his son in the wings, their connections to a very vocal hispanic voting block, unfortunately for them W has fairly mired that oligarchy.

Then in the other corner we have the Clinton powerhouse trying to regain control, I think the country is very afraid of that and while she may get the Dem nod, likelyhood of those to getting back in that office are very slim, no matter what the Reps run.

I actually don't see any current Dem candidate having the werewithal to take the upcoming election despite all the repeated shots into the foot by the other side.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

For threee decades we had a significant Dem majority in the Senate and House...and during that time a few Dem Presidents. The Republicans enjoyed a slim majority for a short time...Today the party platforms and lines are so weak and undefined that the titles are becoming meaningless.

The Bush family was gearing toward quite the run, with Jeb and his son in the wings, their connections to a very vocal hispanic voting block, unfortunately for them W has fairly mired that oligarchy.

Then in the other corner we have the Clinton powerhouse trying to regain control, I think the country is very afraid of that and while she may get the Dem nod, likelyhood of those to getting back in that office are very slim, no matter what the Reps run.

I actually don't see any current Dem candidate having the werewithal to take the upcoming election despite all the repeated shots into the foot by the other side.

In any case, it should make for an interesting election, seeing that this is the first time in over 50 years that the field is clear of incumbant presidents or vice-presidents. Or ex-president or ex-vices. (Unless Gore decides to toss his hat in the ring)

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Perhaps you need to go back and read the Constitution. The powers of the Presidency are limited, and designed as such. The framers knew what they were doing when they charted the Articles. If anyone has the powers to that you think the President has, it is Congress:

Hi Dondi. I am aware of what the Constitution says about the powers of the Executive office. But the fact is that there are times when the lines are blurred. The article below is rather long, but it might shed some light on the matter. I really hate to post it, but it is public information, anyway. You might like it--it doesn't necessarily make Clinton look that good, and I gather you don't like him anyway.

The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Post not showing on list, dang it! Bump.

[Tao_Equus]

Site playing up again...had a couple of server errors and several posts I noticed have not been mainboarded.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

In any case, it should make for an interesting election, seeing that this is the first time in over 50 years that the field is clear of incumbant presidents or vice-presidents. Or ex-president or ex-vices. (Unless Gore decides to toss his hat in the ring)

I'd say Hillary's status is more powerful than that of a VP.