What, you mean, like October maybe?

BTW, near as I can tell that came from WND.

Coordinated by the president.

No more balance of powers. He makes the decisions.

Why would that be cause for alarm? Shit, by the time we have a national emergency, there may not be a real balance of power anyway, and you will have been worrying over nothing.

My point here, in this thread, was that I don’t understand how people such as yourself, who donned the uniform of this nation and fought in a freaking war, believing that you were defending the Constitution, can defend an administration that only keeps the damned thing around because, lucky for us, they have a good supply of Charmin.

Defending the Constitution and supporting the “imperial presidency” are mutually exclusive.

Also, I think you should have included the sentence that followed the ones you quoted: “It just seems odd that they can be so riled by an affair with an intern and silent when the stakes are so much bigger.”

Bush makes power grab

Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,” with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for “National Essential Functions” of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president’s directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines “catastrophic emergency” as “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.”
When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an “enduring constitutional government.”

Translated into layman’s terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.
The directive specifies that the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism will be designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.
Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be “the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.”
Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend.
Townsend spent 13 years at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where she served as assistant commandant for intelligence.
She is a White House staff member in the executive office of the president who also chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the National Security Council reports directly to the president.
The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation “shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”
A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the president “may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”
The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a balance empowered to “modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority,” if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the requirements of NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 under Townsend’s direction.
The White House had no comment.

Can it be scard tieme now?

And, just like when Nixon was President, the attempt by the President to push the swinging pendulum of power his way, instead of waiting for its natural swing, was viewed with alarm.

There is a distinguishable pattern here. When a Republican President seeks to wrest power away from the Legislative Branch, it is viewed with alarm.

It occurred during the Roosevelt administration, but then it only happened again with Nixon, and now Bush.

The Christian Science Monitor said it well: “Does this mean the imperial presidency is back for good? No. The bottom line is the president is as imperial as the Congress, the press, and the public allow him to be.”

Or is it your belief that the “unitary executive” is a better system than the separate but equal thing we’ve been using?

The amusing part is that conservatives have the foresight of a gnat. Have you turds ever thought about how a shift of power to the president will work out for you once a Democrat is in the White House? Of course not. You’re the same as the retards who want to destroy the wall between church and state and then cry about how the Muslims are infiltrating our government in an effort to turn the US into a theocracy.

But hey, if you don’t see the threat of the “unitary executive,” then it must not exist, right?

Your hatred of liberals has truly blinded you.

Take a look at Venezuela right now and see what it ACTUALLY looks like when someone tries to destroy a government. You’ll see just how foolish your claim is.

I recommend a google search on bush “unitary executive”.

But if you don’t want to do that, this sums it up pretty well:

“Yet it seems a nominal limitation and division of power – with real power concentrated solely in the ‘unitary executive’ – is exactly what President Bush seeks. His signing statements make the point quite clearly, and his overt refusal to follow the laws illustrates that point: In Bush’s view, there is no actual limitation or division of power; it all resides in the executive.”

The thing about you loving GWB was a joke. A little levity on an otherwise overly-acerbic day.

And, I didn’t say you fought in a war for the President. I said you did it for the Constitution. Which is why I don’t understand veterans who support The Commander Guy. He hates our country. He is trying to destroy it.

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I’m the dictator.” -GWB

the President is unpopular (in part) because he is actively trying to destroy our system of government.
Not only don’t I believe he is doing that, but I don’t believe that many people believe that, especially outside the Democratic Party.

His administration is trying to consolidate all power into the executive branch, destroying the system of checks and balances that protect us from tyranny.
Again, I don’t believe he is doing that, and I don’t believe that many people believe that, outside the Democratic Party.

ND: Your idiotic comment about loving Pres. Bush, and wanting to marry him, just reduced the value of your comment to near zero.

I don’t claim to have fought in a war. I DID fight in a war, and it wasn’t for the President.

That’s one reason out of probably 100 or 150 or 200 as to why Bush is A) the worst president ever, and B) deservedly unpopular.

I know you love George W, and would marry him if you could, but try for one minute to take a serious look at the damage that he is doing to our country and then come back and tell us all why you still defend him. You claim to have fought in a war to (ostensibly) defend the Constitution. Why would you support someone that is doing his damnedest to piss all over it?

Now where can I find Hirahuri?

So, you like Hitler, then, right?

…the President is unpopular, because, well, because.

He’s still popular at your house? Really? Can you name 5 positive things about the President?

Actually I believe Truman was was down in the twenties. Haven’t verified though.

Look at you, for example. You haven’t said anything bad about me (on this thread) since, what, May 27, 2007 1:59:19 PM

I don’t really care to address this issue again. So you can go on, acting like the villain in a “B” movie.

I don’t give a $hit.