Is Bush getting power mad??

No problemo mis amigos. There is nothing to see here. Move along, move along. It is just a precaution for the safety of our Union. No reason for concern. Once we have the proper legislation passed on several issues we will be on the path to a prosperous country. You must understand, we need to have this legislation to maintain order. !Viva Los Estados Unidos!
 
I can recall my parents and some of the friends arguing about similar proposals during the Cold War. Either Truman or Eisenhower institiuted plans for the continuation of govenment in the event of a first-strike on the capital.

Then, the military would assume control and direct the response to the Soviets as well as coordinate domestic recovery. This was a huge bone of contention by the adults, most of whom saw what military governments became (in Japan, Germany and Italy).

What we have here is an attempt to address a different situation where one or more WMD's are deployed on US soil and strong positive actions must be taken to contain and resolve the situation. As we all know, Congress often hamstrings the gov't by endless squabbling and bickering.

That the current plan is flawed is unsurprising. To me, it shows a real concern on the part of government that terrorists or enemies could in fact cause major upheavals within the U.S. That's truely frightening.

Of course a natural disaster could invoke this directive too. Something catastrophic such as an 8.0+ earthquake near New Madrid, Mo. or a huge volcanic eruption of the lava dome in/near Yellowstone Park. Those two events would impact approximately half the country directly.
 
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."
Click to expand...

This is the part that I find especially troubling. "Location"- anywhere in the world, apparently, that damages our economy, among other things.
Pretty broad area, IMHO.

badbob
 
I better put on my flak jacket and kevlar helmet, but

Its been the national pastime to cuss and blaspheme the US President for decades and some of 'em have damn sure deserved it but when we get to GWB seems like lots of folks are down to picking him to the bones. I always thought that trying to set up a democratic government over there among those troglodytes was ill advised, and after thoroughly kicking their hineys and getting rid of Saddam, was a good time to bug out and let the mosque yodelers fight and kill off each other.

George was Texas Governor following the most embaressing governorship of a loud mouthed, sarcastic heifer who did not represent most Texans, he did a good job down there in Austin. I never knew why he would want to go to Washington among those flesh eating vultures and leftist media and run for the White House? I sent him an email asking that question but I never heard back from him. He must be as hard headed as I am......I am at a loss as to his motives in Iraq now, but maybe that's because I am just an old worn out farmer.....
 
[What do you mean "getting"?/QUOTE]

Thank you. Once upon a time, I saw a book called "The Madness of King George", and without reading the book, I think the title is relevent as hell when used to discuss our "leader".

I fear election day could be....

"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." "

Please God, don't save the king.
Click to expand...
 
I agree, the president should not be planning on how to deal with catastrophic events that affect the well being of the nation.

;)

Dang, we need somebody in there who just plain don't care. Any of you guys running for office?

John
 
A brief synopsis of Martial Law can be found here: ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
Click to expand...

There is more at the site linked above.

Suffice it to say, some presidential directive can not contravene what the Court has said in ex parte Milligan.

There is, however, one thing that Lincoln did that is not often mentioned. After the Supreme Court gave their decision, Lincoln made the following remark to them and about their ruling: It's their judgement, let them enforce it. (paraphrased)

In other words, Lincoln ignored the Court. Could that happen today? I think it would depend upon how the police and (more importantly) the military commanders actually thought about it. Katrina is an excellent and recent example of the mindset: Just Following Orders.

Now you know what the Court has said and what would most likely actually happen.
 
LMAO - "Getting"? Glad you're taking notice, but where ya been, man? Go back and re-read multitudes of threads here and all over the net in the last 6 years. He's made unprecented power-grabs over and over and over again, like no other POTUS in history. This admin is a clear danger to the separation of powers doctrine in our constitutional scheme of government, with all of its illegal powergrabs which are well-documented. Not the least of which is engaging in a war without Congressional approval.

In other words, Lincoln ignored the Court. Could that happen today?
Click to expand...

It happened in the 1950s, following Brown vs. Board of Ed. of Topeka. "It" being a component of government disobeying the order of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of the law, supreme over the entire nation. But in that case it was the STATES that were the component of government which ignored the SCOTUS ruling, and the fedgov (exec branch) just so happened to back the SCOTUS that time, and sent US-controlled troops to enforce the ruling within the states. But, as in Lincoln's time, if the fedgov itself ignored the SCOTUS (as Bush is liable to do - he has shown his disdain for the rule of law time and time again, most notably with Padilla et al, & with illegal eavesdropping on US citizens), then we're in a heap o' trouble, and our guns may be needed.
 
If a lot of the country I was ruling wanted me and my buddies tried for treason I would also want to make it easier to declare martial law....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top