Bush's new power - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:38 AM on j-body.org
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.

Read about it here.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:46 AM on j-body.org
My thoughts:
"You think he woulda done something like this for Katrina?"
"Do we start calling him Pappa Gilligan?"
"What Would Jesus Do?"




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:36 AM on j-body.org
and.. why am i not surprised?



Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:30 PM on j-body.org
uummmm wow
what a @!#$ piece of @!#$. how the @!#$ is that constituional?? seriously i hope he dies in a fire. hes a piece of @!#$ and shouldnt be allowed to be a manager at a @!#$ mcdonalds let alone president of the US. @!#$! i wish i had the money to move to canada or europe. @!#$ this redneck piece of @!#$



Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:13 PM on j-body.org
Not to defend Bush because god know I am not trying to do that,
But from a little bit of research (what most ppl should do before they make assumptions) this is just modify existing Directives

if you look at the bottom of the whitehouse doc (link is in that link)

Quote:

(21) This directive:

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.


Googling Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 you can see that this goes back way before BUSH.

And Furthermore directive or executive decrees have been signed by presidents since Nixon, Bush of course has used it the most. Now as far as them being constitutional that has yet to be challenged or decided by the Supreme Courts.

Seriously try to read the official doc if you understand the policy mumble it's not as bad as it sounds and there are very specific guidelines and restrictions (which of course would be bent I am sure)
Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:23 PM on j-body.org
Spin it or slice it as you will, in the end this directive (formerly know as "executive orders") removed the clause in the national emergency act that would allow congress to review, recind, modify or stop the president's orders if they are found inappropriate. The balance is now gone , ironically to "ensure the continuity of constitutional government"

So in order to preserve constitutional government you must first remove congressional powers?

Hmmm....

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:13 PM on j-body.org
You do realise that Presidential Directives written by Gilligan have basically made it a standing order to pretty much ignore the text of a law as voted and passed by congress and the senate.

Seriously, look it up.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:15 PM on j-body.org
Roofy Online
Yeah, I could see Bush declaring a "national emergency" sometime around election time, and extending his powers indefinately. Wether that "emergency" be real or (most likely) fabricated.
I'm not saying he will, but I wouldn't put it past him.




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!

Re: Bush's new power
Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:07 PM on j-body.org
correct me if im wrong but i have two things to say
as far as i know, there was always a directive in the constitution that would enable a state of emergency to be called and the president would remain in power for that duration
and also, the president could declare this, but wouldnt it have to be approved by the house and/or senate majorities?



Re: Bush's new power
Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:50 PM on j-body.org
This article coming from the news service that claims eating soy as a kid will make you gay.


lol, find some real news.



Re: Bush's new power
Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:59 PM on j-body.org
Gay? No, but vegetarian diets have been proved to increase lesbian birth rates if memory serves me.

Anyhow: Emor8T:
Quote:


United States

Further information: Insurrection Act

In the United States, there are several methods for government response to emergency situations. The President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to declare a state of emergency. A state governor or even a local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters. At the federal level, the National Emergencies Act limits the President's ability to declare emergencies by requiring that they expire within two years unless specifically extended, and that the President specify in advance which legal provisions will be invoked. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for the freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during such an emergency. A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations; federal assistance also becomes available to areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. For FEMA, emergency declarations are different from the more common disaster declarations done for hurricanes and floods. Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

The United States is officially in an ongoing state of emergency which began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order's actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with "Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process."[7] This "national emergency" was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden[8], and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.[9] There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type, referenced at [10] and [11], regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy is the state of emergency declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush's Proclamation 7463, regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This emergency continues through at least September, 2007.[12]

The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related. For example, habeas corpus is the right to challenge an arrest in court. The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Constitution also provides an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of "public danger." These are the only emergency provisions in the Constitution.

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 during the American Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to demands by generals to set up military courts to rein in "copperheads", or those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866 that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed.

The Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established that Presidents may not act arbitrarily during an emergency. In 1976 the National Emergencies Act set a limit of two years on emergency declarations unless the president explicitly extends them.


More info, but Op-ed: http://www.shadowmonkey.net/news/latest/13-year-old-state-of-emergency.html

Either way, the problem with creating this state of emergency is that it isn't likely to end, and Gilligan just gave himself and the executive branch a boat load more powers... The problem is that with the new Pro-Conservative Republican courts, basically any power the White House wants to afford itself, it can, and basically, the courts are going to allow it because they're no longer an independant body, most of them are so in bed with the GOP that they're farting "Suck it, Whigs."





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:08 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.



Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 04, 2007 4:28 AM on j-body.org
Wow, Canada keeps looking like a better place to live...the longer bush is in power.



PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 04, 2007 4:49 AM on j-body.org
Hey, our dollar will be equal soon. As long as you're not attached to deducting your mortgage interest, the GTO or cheap gas, it's open.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 04, 2007 5:41 AM on j-body.org
I thought mortgage interest was treated the same as rent. A housing expense and therefore depending on income you may be able to write it off. Of course anyone in service or sales can claim their home is a place of work and get partial deductions that way.

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 04, 2007 11:27 AM on j-body.org
No, mortgage interest isn't deductible, as interest, if you have a small business out of your home, it can be lumped into max 25% of your operating expenses.

Unless what my accountant is telling me is wrong.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:10 PM on j-body.org
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Gay? No, but vegetarian diets have been proved to increase lesbian birth rates if memory serves me.

Anyhow: Emor8T:
Quote:


United States

Further information: Insurrection Act

In the United States, there are several methods for government response to emergency situations. The President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to declare a state of emergency. A state governor or even a local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters. At the federal level, the National Emergencies Act limits the President's ability to declare emergencies by requiring that they expire within two years unless specifically extended, and that the President specify in advance which legal provisions will be invoked. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows for the freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during such an emergency. A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations; federal assistance also becomes available to areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. For FEMA, emergency declarations are different from the more common disaster declarations done for hurricanes and floods. Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

The United States is officially in an ongoing state of emergency which began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order's actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with "Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process."[7] This "national emergency" was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden[8], and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.[9] There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type, referenced at [10] and [11], regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy is the state of emergency declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush's Proclamation 7463, regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This emergency continues through at least September, 2007.[12]

The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related. For example, habeas corpus is the right to challenge an arrest in court. The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Constitution also provides an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of "public danger." These are the only emergency provisions in the Constitution.

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 during the American Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to demands by generals to set up military courts to rein in "copperheads", or those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866 that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed.

The Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established that Presidents may not act arbitrarily during an emergency. In 1976 the National Emergencies Act set a limit of two years on emergency declarations unless the president explicitly extends them.


More info, but Op-ed: http://www.shadowmonkey.net/news/latest/13-year-old-state-of-emergency.html

Either way, the problem with creating this state of emergency is that it isn't likely to end, and Gilligan just gave himself and the executive branch a boat load more powers... The problem is that with the new Pro-Conservative Republican courts, basically any power the White House wants to afford itself, it can, and basically, the courts are going to allow it because they're no longer an independant body, most of them are so in bed with the GOP that they're farting "Suck it, Whigs."



Huh, why are you talking to me. Jeez GAM, Fruedian slip much? No I will not make out with you!



I'm sorry. I don't speak gibberish. Review what you write before you post!
Re: Bush's new power
Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:01 PM on j-body.org
Aww.. but you loved it when we went to Sachs looking for pink cowboy boots.

Yeah... I effed that up... Meant Marin8r...



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:17 PM on j-body.org
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Aww.. but you loved it when we went to Sachs looking for pink cowboy boots.

Yeah... I effed that up... Meant Marin8r...


That was Dave you took shopping for pink cowboy boots. Or whatever, there your dreams, they don't actually happen.



I'm sorry. I don't speak gibberish. Review what you write before you post!
Re: Bush's new power
Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:45 PM on j-body.org
I know about the mole in the shape of Suriname on your left buttcheek. Don't make me post the pictures.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:38 AM on j-body.org
and this is why I'm pro gun.

not because I want to kill people or animals. but to defend myself and hopefully one-day be part of the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Viva La Revolucion!!!!





Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:17 AM on j-body.org
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:and this is why I'm pro gun.

not because I want to kill people or animals. but to defend myself and hopefully one-day be part of the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Viva La Revolucion!!!!



Yea.... that's a long way from happening. I'm going to venture to say violent government overthrow is probably 30 years away if at all.


Please, stay home.



I'm sorry. I don't speak gibberish. Review what you write before you post!

Re: Bush's new power
Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:53 PM on j-body.org
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:and this is why I'm pro gun.

not because I want to kill people or animals. but to defend myself and hopefully one-day be part of the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Viva La Revolucion!!!!

The mole on Emor8t's butt in the shape of Suriname isn't a government conspiracy... or... is it?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 11, 2007 9:40 AM on j-body.org
Emor8t wrote:
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:and this is why I'm pro gun.

not because I want to kill people or animals. but to defend myself and hopefully one-day be part of the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government.

Viva La Revolucion!!!!



Yea.... that's a long way from happening. I'm going to venture to say violent government overthrow is probably 30 years away if at all.


Please, stay home.


unfortunately, a violent overthrow of the government will not be an option if/when america finally goes overboard and becomes a fascist/communistic/socialistic/whatever country. as we progress through time, the governments learn from past government's mistakes so that no revolutions are the same. our guns will be limited and eventually taken before america goes all the way down the tubes so that there will be no way to actually, physically fight against the government. our revolution will be 50-100 years from now, and will be fought online through "tech terrorism." the days of an armed revolt are waning in all industrialized countries....the next world-changing revolution will be all computerized. (of course we might be fighting skynet by that time )




Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 11, 2007 11:57 AM on j-body.org
You know the bundle of sticks on the Senates coat of arms? That's called a "Fascii", you figure it out.

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Re: Bush's new power
Monday, June 11, 2007 12:13 PM on j-body.org
^^^i thought a bundle of sticks was called a "faggot"

hmmm...something more to read into...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search