Experts: Prez directive nothing new

[cynatnite]

When a presidential directive appeared on the White House’s Web site on May 9, seemingly expanding the president's powers after a catastrophic attack, readers began emailing us asking why there had been no uproar in the media or amongst civil liberties groups.

The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Clinton had one, too. It's about continuity of government in the event of a national disaster.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/fpc-65.htm

[Richard Steele]

1. Richard Steele: "Experts" are missing the subtle, important CHANGES in the new plan.

Yes, we have always had various emergency plans
for the "continuity of government"; the Constitution itself
makes allowances for unusual situations where it's described
procedures might be impractical.....

But over (at least) the last century, the actual DETAILED plans were
for FEDERAL AGENCIES to maintain our nation's "continuity"
in the event of certain specific disastrous circumstances.

Now, the new plan has 2 significant diferences:
In the event of a "Disatrous Emergency", the dictatorial
"emergency powers" won't be assumed by any federal agency,
they will be assumed by the PRESIDENT.

And the NEW definition of "emergency" required to enable those
Dictatorial Presidential Powers is so VAGUE, that the definition
means whatever the pResident SAYS it means.

Shrubya W. DictatorTot can now suspend the Constitution and rule
by decree for ANY reason that -he- says is sufficiently urgent,
be it a nuclear bomb blast in midtown D.C.,
a spike in oil prices,
a new "terrorist threat" (that he can't give us details about
for reasons of National Security....)
Or even just because he really kinda feels like it.

That's not the same as the emergency plans past presidents
used to sign off on.

That's not the same at all.

[chknltl]

2. I am no lawyer...please ask your friend:

What would prevent a President from using THIS version to do something like the nazis did with the "Enabling Act of 1933"?
I am not flaming you here...I am quite aware that I am unable to debate this....I WOULD like to hear an answer out of someone who is qualified to assess and answer this for me. I suspect that I am not the only DUer who would have an interest here.... The post prior to mine already gives me cause for worry... as does a thread on this I read here last night.....so what's the scoop?

thanks
c