King George To Assume Full Power?

[Tao_Equus]

As an outsider I can state also that Hilary Clinton is widely respected outside of the US too. In todays climate of strong anti-american sentiment it would be folly to underestimate the value of this.

TE

[Tao_Equus]

Site playing up.... duplicate post.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by InLove

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

I used Clinton as an example, not because of any personal opinion, but to add balance to the discussion, seeing how it is about "King George". In doing so, it becomes not a dig on Bush, per se, but the Office of the President itself.

Originally Posted by The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders...

Many citizens and lawmakers expressed concern over the content and scope of several of President Bill Clinton's executive orders and land proclamations. Congress responded with hearings and the consideration of several bills designed to curb the President's authority to issue such directives. In an exceedingly rare act, the courts reacted by striking down one of President Clinton's executive orders, and litigation to contest the validity of other directives is ongoing....

In the end, the constitutional separation of powers supports both sides of the argument over a President's proper authority. It reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void. Finally, separation of powers principles may be unclear or ambiguous when the power is shared by two branches of government.

Here is the very thing I'm talking about, for not only do you have the legislative branch involved in reviewing the EO, but you have, in the case of Clinton, the judicial branch in play in striking it down. So you see there is provision to counter any attempt by the President to issue any EO's that are not constitutional.

If Bush uses this latest EO to try to manupulate his power unconstitutionally, you can be sure that Congress and the Courts will act.

I have faith in our Constitution.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

but you have, in the case of Clinton, the judicial branch in play in striking it down. So you see there is provision to counter any attempt by the President to issue any EO's that are not constitutional.

If Bush uses this latest EO to try to manupulate his power unconstitutionally, you can be sure that Congress and the Courts will act.

I have faith in our Constitution.

As I currently see it EO's become defacto laws until stated otherwise....so while they have their moments to expedite something on the other hand they circumvent the process. With tens of thousands of them out there...they just travel along until someone utilizes them and then someone challenges them...tying up the court and congress from doing what they were appointed and elected to do, instead they have to clean up executive orders...

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

As I currently see it EO's become defacto laws until stated otherwise....so while they have their moments to expedite something on the other hand they circumvent the process. With tens of thousands of them out there...they just travel along until someone utilizes them and then someone challenges them...tying up the court and congress from doing what they were appointed and elected to do, instead they have to clean up executive orders...

That may well be. But all this particular directive is doing is ensuring the continuity of the three-branch government in the event of a national emergency or crisis, not disbanding it, nor does it appear to be especially designed to give the president any particular powers that would disrupt it. For this to be enacted, we would have to have something on the order of 'Mars Attacks' for it to come into play (in which Jack Nicholson as President quipped, "I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.")

Furthermore, if you look down toward the bottom of the EO, it revokes the previous Presidential Decision Directive 67 of 1998 that pretty much does the same thing. And even that directive revokes similiar directives dated 1992 and 1982. This is nothing new. It just defines functionality and implementation of it a bit more.

[Jack Halyard]

"(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination."

This article of the directive is the part most people are concerned with. The President is stating that he shall lead the Federal Government. There is no mention of needing any approval from the Senate and the Congress for any decisions he might make.

[Dondi]

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

Read the entire sentence this time. The 'activities' in this sentence is the object of the sentence, not Federal Government, which is prefaced by a preposition. Or more to the point, it would also properly read, without the prepositional qualifier, "The President shall lead the activities for ensuring constitutional government."

[dauer]

I think this proposal is leading into a lot of doublespeak where the language we are familiar with: president, democracy, balance of power, constitutional all comes to refer to ideas divorced from their intent and current understanding.

Dauer

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

I think this proposal is leading into a lot of doublespeak where the language we are familiar with: president, democracy, balance of power, constitutional all comes to refer to ideas divorced from their intent and current understanding.

Dauer

In what ways?

[dauer]

Well for example we could say democracy and really be referring to unilateral decision-making. We could say constitutional to refer to the persecution of a minority. Balance of power can come to mean one of the three branches of gov't claiming more power. President can come to refer to someone with a great deal more power, a situation where his word becomes law.

In a way I admire some of the fanatical world leaders for their honesty. Too often leaders try to phrase things in a pc way to gain acceptance instead of fully admitting why they're doing things or how they feel about a certain matter. I'd like to see more honesty from our leaders.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Well for example we could say democracy and really be referring to unilateral decision-making. We could say constitutional to refer to the persecution of a minority. Balance of power can come to mean one of the three branches of gov't claiming more power. President can come to refer to someone with a great deal more power, a situation where his word becomes law.

Still don't get it.

Actually, our system of government is really a republic. If it were truly a direct democracy, then the population would vote for everything instead of having representatives to do it for us. And since we are a republic, it is mutually exclusive to monarchy. And in our constitution the majority rules, except in cases where a minority group thinks they have the lobby to push their ideas to the forefront and pretend they are the majority opinion. Or that they are PC. Three branches are there for checks and balances so that any one cannot have overwhelming power. And Presidents cannot make laws.

Don't know what you are getting at. I just don't think people should read into things that aren't there.

In a way I admire some of the fanatical world leaders for their honesty. Too often leaders try to phrase things in a pc way to gain acceptance instead of fully admitting why they're doing things or how they feel about a certain matter. I'd like to see more honesty from our leaders.

I wish all our leaders in all three branches were honest, but that would be asking too much. But neither do I believe in "secret" agendas, despite what conspiracists say. Still, I wouldn't trade what we have here for any other form of government in the world, dictatorial or not.

[dauer]

Actually, our system of government is really a republic. If it were truly a direct democracy, then the population would vote for everything instead of having representatives to do it for us.

I'm aware it is a republic but a republic is still a democratic system. Calling it democracy does not then prevent abuse of power. It only provides an external pc mask for that abuse.

And in our constitution the majority rules, except in cases where a minority group thinks they have the lobby to push their ideas to the forefront and pretend they are the majority opinion. Or that they are PC.

Majority rule and persecution of minority are two very different things. In order to allow for majority rule there are currently systems in place to protect minorities who might unfairly be persecuted by a zealous majority. However, as has been proven time and again, for example in the profiling that prevented a group of Imams from boarding a plane and that led to the forced concentration camps in the US during WWII or the blacklisting during hte Cold War, sometimes the mob rules.

Three branches are there for checks and balances so that any one cannot have overwhelming power. And Presidents cannot make laws.

And that is what I'm saying this type of posturing is challenging under the guise of support for the very democratic system it threatens to undue.

I just don't think people should read into things that aren't there.

Clearly if it isn't there it shouldn't be read into, but for us as observers what is or is not there is largely subjective, and as you agree all the leaders are not honest it is sometimes necessary to read between the lines.

Dauer

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

I'm aware it is a republic but a republic is still a democratic system. Calling it democracy does not then prevent abuse of power. It only provides an external pc mask for that abuse.

Well, any political system can be abused. The question is which one would have the least likely chance of becoming corrupt.

Originally Posted by dauer

Majority rule and persecution of minority are two very different things. In order to allow for majority rule there are currently systems in place to protect minorities who might unfairly be persecuted by a zealous majority. However, as has been proven time and again, for example in the profiling that prevented a group of Imams from boarding a plane and that led to the forced concentration camps in the US during WWII or the blacklisting during hte Cold War, sometimes the mob rules.

Whether right or wrong, the Imams issue was a business decision by US Airways personnel, not a political one. There was some dispute about whether or not the Imams were being disruptive, not so much for their desire to pray in the ternimal, although apparently some were uncomfortable with that, but that they allegedly made anti-American remarks about the Iraq war and they were all sitting in different places on the plane. Under the circumstances, I think US Airways was being cautious, perhaps overtly so.

Senator McCarthy's witch hunt of the 50s was over the top, also. But when you have spies like the Rosenburgs crawling out of the woodwork, it's hard to not be concerned.

The Japanese internment camps are admittedly paranoid. But in all these cases its more than just a matter of persecution of minorities. It's dealing with issues of security for the nation. Yes, people are going to get jumpy if a person of Arab descent exhibits unusual behavior on a plane, in light of what happened almost 6 years ago. I would, too, if I were on that plane. It doesn't make it easier for those Arabs who mean no harm, but it doesn't make it easier for us as well. I don't think it is a racial issue or minority issue as much as it is a security issue. People are scared, and rightfully so.

And that is what I'm saying this type of posturing is challenging under the guise of support for the very democratic system it threatens to undue.

I suppose it's possible. But until I see otherwise, I still have faith in it.

Clearly if it isn't there it shouldn't be read into, but for us as observers what is or is not there is largely subjective, and as you agree all the leaders are not honest it is sometimes necessary to read between the lines.

What do you suppose that President Bush is going to do with this new EO? What can he do? You tell me that.

[dauer]

The question is which one would have the least likely chance of becoming corrupt.

No, the question is if it is being, has been or will be subversively corrupted.

Senator McCarthy's witch hunt of the 50s was over the top, also. But when you have spies like the Rosenburgs crawling out of the woodwork, it's hard to not be concerned.

I'm glad you admit it was wrong, but you also seem to justify his actions by saying it's hard not to be concerned. Everyone has their motivations for the way they act and sometimes we act in destructive ways under well-meaning pretenses of at least claim to. History repeatedly calls violence and oppression and suppression an act of love. Try and tell the people being hurt that.

The Japanese internment camps are admittedly paranoid. But in all these cases its more than just a matter of persecution of minorities. It's dealing with issues of security for the nation.

So acting out on one's own paranoia is justifiable regardless of the consequences as long as it's done out of the belief that it's for the security of the nation? Would you like to justify the Holocaust next?

What do you suppose that President Bush is going to do with this new EO? What can he do? You tell me that.

Only time will tell. As I said in an earlier post I see this as leading into more problems. I think this is one step on a long road to the political castration of the American people via fear-mongering, discrimination, blaming others instead of taking ownership, and the support of a mob mentality.

Dauer

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Here is the very thing I'm talking about, for not only do you have the legislative branch involved in reviewing the EO, but you have, in the case of Clinton, the judicial branch in play in striking it down. So you see there is provision to counter any attempt by the President to issue any EO's that are not constitutional.

If Bush uses this latest EO to try to manupulate his power unconstitutionally, you can be sure that Congress and the Courts will act.

I have faith in our Constitution.

Dondi, just so you know--I don't believe it is unpatriotic to question the actions of the government of my country. In fact, it is because I care about it that I do question certain things. I think that our form of government is as good as any can be or ever has been. So when I see something that doesn't look right to me, I feel it is my responsibility to investigate why to the best of my ability, according to the information I have and whatever experience and history I can draw upon. When an overwhelming number of citizens speak with their precious vote against the way an administration has operated over nearly two full terms, then it serves to highlight a pattern that concerns me, particulary when that majority is progressively becoming bi-partisan. I have faith in our Constitution, too, but only if it is being enforced. I gave some clear historical examples of times when the congressional and judicial authorities did not enforce the Constitution, and so I don't see why you think it couldn't happen again. There may be a recently elected Democratic majority in Congress now, but that does not say anything about our Supreme Court appointees. You may not believe this, but I am not trying to be subversive. I am trying to be objective.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Furthermore, if you look down toward the bottom of the EO, it revokes the previous Presidential Decision Directive 67 of 1998 that pretty much does the same thing. And even that directive revokes similiar directives dated 1992 and 1982. This is nothing new. It just defines functionality and implementation of it a bit more.

The document cited here is not the actual Directive. Why? Because, as cited in that same document:

The text of PDD-67 has not been released, and there is no White House Factsheet summarizing its provisions.

And:

Presidential Decision Directive 67 (PDD 67), issued 21 October 1998, relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations. The purpose of Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), Continuity of Government (COG), and Continuity of Operations (COOP) is to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions. Presidential Decision Directive 67 replaced the Bush Administration's NSD 69 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 "Enduring National Leadership" of 14 September 1982.

If you go to the link provided in this document, you can look and see which other of the above texts the White House has not released, and the status of that process. Here:

National Security Directives (NSD) [Bush Administration, 1989-93]

I find it all very interesting. I'm not saying I know of anything for certain that is necessarily an urgent concern yet. But I see that "we the people" are, for some unknown reason, not privvy to some of these documents from that far back--ones that have been revoked, yet we so readily have the text to the current one. I can't help but wonder why. Don't you wonder, too?

InPeace,
InLove