Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King? (AlterNet)

[marmar]

Don't We Have a Constitution, Not a King?

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted June 1, 2007.



Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?

As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a "cooperative effort" among the three branches, "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." The Vice-President would help to implement the plans.

"Comity," however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be "proper." This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize "the unitary executive."

...(snip)...

One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq. It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/story/52801/?page=1

[texpatriot2004]

1. As I recall, in past election seasons, terror threats increase...

no coincidence there. I keep thinking that they will plan and execute an inside attack, similar to their last "Pearl Harbor" and seize power based on this (and other) signing statements.

Again, I don't understand the reticence to impeach these lying criminals!

I put nothing past them.

Deeply disturbing this is. Defend the US Constitution, IMPEACH them both; impeach, indict, imprison!

[DemSoccerMom]

2. I've actually made just this point

in DU before. This is how dictatorships are begun. It's really quite scary, and the fact that the MSM has given this little to no play makes them complicit, IMHO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the directive worded in such a way that a "catastrophic emergency" anywhere in the world would also put this directive into effect? The wording is ambiguous, and I fear that BushCo will use the war in Iraq as a "catastrophic emergency" to implement this joke of a directive.

Bush is just an evil, evil man, er, boy.