White House to Consolidate Power Due to "Catastrophe"?

This one is getting some buzz, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

Click to expand...

And what qualifies as a "catastrophic emergency?" That's a little vague.

It includes things like localized natural disasters (like Katrina?)

CTrs are pointing to this as proof of a conspiracy, coupled with the detention centers being built by Halliburton. We also saw the extensive use of private mercenaries during Katrina.


My question is whether or not anyone sees this as justified under any circumstances? Is there a scenario under which you think the three branches of government should be consolidated under the President but allowed to exist in the interest of "comity"? This is a truly radical idea, isn't it?

Unabogie said:

And what qualifies as a "catastrophic emergency?" That's a little vague.

Click to expand...

Well, it's defined in your own link as,

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means 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...

The obvious one that comes to mind is nuclear war.

It includes things like localized natural disasters (like Katrina?)

Click to expand...

It could in principle include natural disasters, but no, I don't think it would include Katrina.

My question is whether or not anyone sees this as justified under any circumstances? Is there a scenario under which you think the three branches of government should be consolidated under the President but allowed to exist in the interest of "comity"? This is a truly radical idea, isn't it?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is a radical idea. I think this sort of planning went on quite regularly during the cold war, and in the event of something like nuclear war with the soviets, yes, consolidating power in the president might indeed have been necessary to allow continuity of government control.

Ziggurat said:

The obvious one that comes to mind is nuclear war.

Click to expand...

But it includes such vague additions as "economic" or "environmental". Would this not include a precipitous drop in our currency with a massive stock drop? After all, this is not explicitly laid out, so we're left to the judgment of...well...George Bush to tell us what qualifies.

It could in principle include natural disasters, but no, I don't think it would include Katrina.

Click to expand...

Why not?

No, I don't think it is a radical idea. I think this sort of planning went on quite regularly during the cold war, and in the event of something like nuclear war with the soviets, yes, consolidating power in the president might indeed have been necessary to allow continuity of government control.

Click to expand...

Evidence of this? Were there any executive orders which stated that in the event of a nuclear attack, all power went to Ronald Reagan? Carter? Nixon? Ford?

Here is Ronald Reagan's EO.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12656

In a quick skim, I don't see anywhere where he attempts to place the Congress and the Courts under his jurisdiction, do you?

In fact, he limited his interaction to...

(6) Provide information and assistance to the Federal Judicial branch and the Federal Legislative branch concerning law enforcement, continuity of government, and the exercise of legal authority during national security emergencies;

Click to expand...

Unabogie said:

But it includes such vague additions as "economic" or "environmental". Would this not include a precipitous drop in our currency with a massive stock drop? After all, this is not explicitly laid out, so we're left to the judgment of...well...George Bush to tell us what qualifies.

Click to expand...

Yes, the phrasing is vague, but that doesn't actually matter, because this is a presidential directive, it isn't a law. Which means, among other things, it doesn't actually empower ANYONE to do ANYTHING that Bush couldn't just tell them to do directly anyways. So there's no "threat" in him calling something a "catastrophic emergency" under the definition of this directive even if it isn't, because he still can't do anything under such conditions that he couldn't do in a non-"catastrophic emergency" situation.

Evidence of this? Were there any executive orders which stated that in the event of a nuclear attack, all power went to Ronald Reagan? Carter? Nixon? Ford?

Click to expand...

Well, this document doesn't say that the president gets all the power either, so I'm not sure what your point is, chicken little.

What this document does is spell out requirements and policies for disaster preparedness for the executive branch. In other words, agencies are supposed to identify which of their functions are considered "vital", and make sure that these functions will be able to continue to function after a disaster.

Ziggurat said:

Well, this document doesn't say that the president gets all the power either, so I'm not sure what your point is, chicken little.

Click to expand...

You know, I'd like to enjoy discussing things with you, as you're obviously a bright enough guy, but it always seems like two posts in to our discussions, you devolve into name calling, which makes me want to ignore you rather than engage you. This isn't the first time you've done this, so I would like to suggest you ask yourself why you have this compulsion?

Anyway, the whole point is that this document says the President becomes the Coordinator (Decider?) and that the other two branches should answer to the Executive branch. This is radical, as I've pointed out using my favorite tool, "evidence" which is different from "name calling". Whether he has that authority is an interesting debate, but then again, this is the same President who claims he cannot be bound by Congress or the Courts and that he is a Unitary Executive.

When a President proclaims some new power, it's certainly rational to respond that he wouldn't actually use such a radical power. For instance, no President would order massive roundups of dissidents, without risking impeachment and then jail. However, what that relies on is the the good graces of the man in the office, and clearly our system is set up so that we don't have to ever rely on the good graces of a King.

Have to go do some work.

Unabogie said:

You know, I'd like to enjoy discussing things with you, as you're obviously a bright enough guy, but it always seems like two posts in to our discussions, you devolve into name calling, which makes me want to ignore you rather than engage you. This isn't the first time you've done this, so I would like to suggest you ask yourself why you have this compulsion?

Click to expand...

Because I'm a jerk. Point taken.

Anyway, the whole point is that this document says the President becomes the Coordinator (Decider?) and that the other two branches should answer to the Executive branch.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say they "answer" to the executive, and "coordinator" does NOT mean "decider". Consider, for example, a case where Washington gets nuked by Dirk jihadis. Surviving legislators need to meet in order to declare war on Dirka-Dirkastan. How do they do that when civilian air traffic is shut down and Washington is a smoking hole? The executive branch is, under this directive, now responsible for making sure they can meet somewhere safe and perform their legislative duties. It "coordinates" their activities by finding and securing a location for them to meet, making sure they can get there safely. It does not give the president their legislative powers in any way, shape, or form.

Unabogie said:

Anyway, the whole point is that this document says the President becomes the Coordinator (Decider?) and that the other two branches should answer to the Executive branch. This is radical, as I've pointed out using my favorite tool, "evidence" which is different from "name calling". Whether he has that authority is an interesting debate, but then again, this is the same President who claims he cannot be bound by Congress or the Courts and that he is a Unitary Executive.

Click to expand...

I agree with the paranoia regarding the president's power grabbing behaviors, but I don't see it in this statement in the OP. It states coordination.

Now when he says silly things that are touted by the Talking Point Parrots about executive privilege and the ability of the president to wage war, I get more scared. And I agree by history Bush is a cagey one, especialy when he tries to use Presidential Signing statement to claim some vauge presidential perogative in statinh what the interpretation of legeslation is.

This is very reminiscwent of the cold war stuff. But as long as the president does not declare a Diktat situation he hasn't crossed the line.

I am more upset by his use of recess appointments.

When a President proclaims some new power, it's certainly rational to respond that he wouldn't actually use such a radical power. For instance, no President would order massive roundups of dissidents, without risking impeachment and then jail. However, what that relies on is the the good graces of the man in the office, and clearly our system is set up so that we don't have to ever rely on the good graces of a King.

Have to go do some work.

Click to expand...

It is always good to be wary of those in power, and to never trust in good intentions.

Got my work done.

Ziggurat said:

Because I'm a jerk. Point taken.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

It doesn't say they "answer" to the executive, and "coordinator" does NOT mean "decider". Consider, for example, a case where Washington gets nuked by Dirk jihadis. Surviving legislators need to meet in order to declare war on Dirka-Dirkastan. How do they do that when civilian air traffic is shut down and Washington is a smoking hole? The executive branch is, under this directive, now responsible for making sure they can meet somewhere safe and perform their legislative duties. It "coordinates" their activities by finding and securing a location for them to meet, making sure they can get there safely. It does not give the president their legislative powers in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

And this is where the question is, IMO. Does the Executive branch even have the authority to coordinate? After all, Congress has its own powers, including a police force. In the plans created by other presidents, including Reagan, the role of the executive was restricted to merely giving advice and support. Yet here, Bush is saying he has designated some unelected woman at DHS to take control as the "Coordinator". Is that even his call at all? What if Congress disagrees with the President's plan and institutes its own plan? And denies the DHS guy the role of Coordinator?

The directive says "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." so I think that therein lies the rub. Given this group's track record, it's easy to read nefarious motives into this. I'm inclined to agree that this isn't the naked power grab that some are claiming, yet it's still puzzling that an administration that has shown such incompetence and disdain when it comes to emergency planning would spend so much time changing a directive from Bill Clinton that is only 7 years old. Apparently, the new Coordinator is going to huddle with the "dumbest ****ing guy on the planet", AKA Douglass Feith and get back to us in 90 days with the new plan.

I'll be curious as to what they come up with.

Unabogie said:

And this is where the question is, IMO. Does the Executive branch even have the authority to coordinate?

Click to expand...

If they don't, nobody does.

After all, Congress has its own powers, including a police force.

Click to expand...

And if congress can't meet in the capitol building, this police force is useless. Congress would need the executive branch (read: the military) to handle a lot of its logistics in a major catastrophe.

In the plans created by other presidents, including Reagan, the role of the executive was restricted to merely giving advice and support. Yet here, Bush is saying he has designated some unelected woman at DHS to take control as the "Coordinator". Is that even his call at all?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "take controll"? Take control of what? The executive branch's efforts to coordinate with other branches? Yes, it's Bush's call who he chooses to do that. Take control of the other branches of government? I'm still not reading anything like that here.

What if Congress disagrees with the President's plan and institutes its own plan? And denies the DHS guy the role of Coordinator?

Click to expand...

They can't deny this person their role. The executive branch gets to choose who they want to be making decisions on their side of things. But I don't see anything here saying that this coordinator can actually command Congress in any way, and if Congress decides to tell them to go to hell (quite unlikely in a genuine catastrophe, but a possibility in any made-up one), I don't see how this document empowers the executive to force anything on them.

The directive says "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." so I think that therein lies the rub.

Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing it. I mean, that pretty much IS the role of the executive branch in an emergency, just like it's the executive branch's role to ensure laws are obeyed during non-emergency situations, because they're the only ones that actually direct significant resources (Congress ONLY appropriates resources). As far as I can tell, they're just saying they'll do what everyone would expect them to do anyeways.

The executive is the branch to deal withe mergencies. All parts have thier role. The president is the first responder and meant to be the one making choices and setting direction.

As long as the President does not take the ability to make laws, decalre war, create a budget and taxation the President has not abrogated the Consititution.

The issue is when emergency measures become permanent and say the president appoints members of congress

What this boils down to is that Bush has now made it so that, should a catastophic event happen in the US, he will be the main beneficiary. This leads one to ask, now that he will benefit from the country getting attacked, what incentive is there for him to actually protect the country?

Tony said:

What this boils down to is that Bush has now made it so that, should a catastophic event happen in the US, he will be the main beneficiary. This leads one to ask, now that he will benefit from the country getting attacked, what incentive is there for him to actually protect the country?

Click to expand...

Bush has less than two years left in office. Unless you're so paranoid that you think he's actually going to try to become president-for-life (in which case you need to get some anti-psychotic drugs), his primary goal is rather obviously going to be to try to finish up what he started - stuff like get tax cuts locked in, and Iraq headed in the right direction. Causing a massive catastrophy doesn't get him closer to any of those goals - it diverts resources from what he wants to do. There's no benefit for Bush at all to letting America be struck again.

You can bitch all you want to about how good a job a president does in protecting America's security, but ALL of them have an incentive to protect the nation. All of them. Even Jimmy Carter.

Ziggurat said:

Bush has less than two years left in office.

Click to expand...

Indeed. So there is no point in him setting himself up as absolute dictator of the US should a "catastrophic" attack occur. We already have continuity of government protocols. So why is he doing it?

Unless you're so paranoid that you think he's actually going to try to become president-for-life (in which case you need to get some anti-psychotic drugs)

Click to expand...

I don't think that, but I'm skeptical of his intentions, as you should be. That you're not is telling.

Causing a massive catastrophy doesn't get him closer to any of those goals - it diverts resources from what he wants to do. There's no benefit for Bush at all to letting America be struck again.

Click to expand...

Except that he gets the power, under the guise of an "emergency", to implement those goals. Not a big thinker today are you Zigg?

You can bitch all you want to about how good a job a president does in protecting America's security, but ALL of them have an incentive to protect the nation.

Click to expand...

And what incentive is that?

First, I don't trust Bush or any of his flunkies as far as I could throw them, and I'm not that strong.

But, this directive is just Bush's version of what are likely very similar directives of earlier Presidents -

"(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. "

What was PDD 67? Don't have the text, but here's a description -

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

From the OP link again, we see -

"(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(My bolding)

You might glance at section (5) of the directive also.

I see nothing in this that does anything more than require the Executive branch's various offices to be prepared for any large scale emergency, and be ready to continue operations in it's aftermath.

But, as a former member of the John Birch Society, I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory!

Tony said:

Indeed. So there is no point in him setting himself up as absolute dictator of the US should a "catastrophic" attack occur. We already have continuity of government protocols. So why is he doing it?

Click to expand...

Maybe because, like most government policies, it needs updating. Or if you want to get really cynical, the somebody needed to produce something in order for it to look like they were earning their sallary. But seeing as how nothing in the document sets up Bush for being a dictator in the event of a catastrophy (as I already pointed out, and went ingored by you, nothing in the document empowers anyone to do anything that the president couldn't do anyways), I'm really not sure why you're freaking out about this.

I don't think that, but I'm skeptical of his intentions, as you should be. That you're not is telling.

Click to expand...

I'm rather tired of this notion of judging Bush's intentions, ESPECIALLY when it seems to try so hard to imply that Bush's intention is to become a dictator. I'm not really interested in intentions. I'm interested in actions. And I'm not seeing anything here of particular note.

Except that he gets the power, under the guise of an "emergency", to implement those goals. Not a big thinker today are you Zigg?

Click to expand...

And how, exactly, does he get those powers? He doesn't, and the document never claims he does. Hallucinations may be a form of "thinking", but nonetheless, I'll pass on that for today.

And what incentive is that?

Click to expand...

Because basically EVERYONE gets pissed if you don't. Duh.