<p>"Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild</p>
<p>May 18, 2007</p>
<p>With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.</p>
<p>Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility for ensuring constitutional government.</p>
<p>He laid this all out in a document entitled National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.</p>
<p>The phrase you quote is from a column written by – you know – a columnist. I don’t understand your concern. Even this “progressive” ezine includes this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that not automatically hating anything this administration does makes me an oddity on CC, but I still don’t get it. If the Executive Branch isn’t in charge of executing on government policy, which branch is? Do you expect Souter and Pelosi to be coordinating the filling of sandbags? It’s the executive branch’s job.</p>
<p>I would want to wait for a few constitutional lawyers to review the directive. I read the text of the directive, but lacking the context of what has traditionally been in place, it’s impossible to evaluate.</p>
<p>IMO, Bush has lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to items that require White House counsel or DOJ legal signoffs. At this point, it’s a reasonable assumption that just about any stunt he pulls is probably questionable from a constitutional law standpoint. His track record of dodgy legal opinions from his hacks and then lying about it is pretty lengthy.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anyone in country who would actually believe that former White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would render a legitimate legal opinion.</p>
<p>After having listened to one left-winger after another falsely accuse the President of failing to plan for anything, I would say it is a good idea for the President to plan to keep the government running properly in the event of a:
<p>Well, I agree with those posters that say that this isn’t a big deal. “Continuity” is the focus here, and any administration would be re-miss in not setting up a plan to maintain continuity – i.e. continuation of as normal as possible functioning following as catastrophe as defined above.</p>
<p>On the other hand, since Bush has often show a disregard for the Constitution, limitations to Executive power, tradition, or the spirit of some important laws and institutions, I think it’s entirely understandable that people would ask whether or not the Administration is using some sleight of hand to set up the attainment of dictatorial powers in the event of an emergency. Since governments often pull the trick of using emergency situations to greatly expand executive power, it isn’t irrational to be concerned about this.</p>
<p>Particularly from an Administration that tried to have basic legal protections for citizens overwritten by a bedridden, vulnerable, apparently befuddled, John Ashcroft. It turned out, though, that Ashcroft wasn’t so befuddled that he didn’t understand how Gonzalez and Card were trying to take an advantage of a sick man to overturn an illegal policy that the AG had already rejected.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why we should be overly concerned about this directive. But I am astonished that anybody would question that there might be a reason for concern. </p>
<p>I would like to know what the crowd arguing that IDad’s concerns are hyperbolic thinks about the performance of Alberto Gonzalez overall and about his fitness for his job.</p>
Well, yeah, except this so-called president has hardly had that as a strong suit. Janet Reno for AG. If she was a pain in the ass to Clinton, just imagine what she’d be to Bush. This is actually the best theory as to why Fredo is hanging on: Bush is terrified by the thought of any non-crony AG that could get Senate confirmation.</p>
<p>I have always believed that these efforts to seize more and more power, eventually declaring martial law, have been Bush and co’s plan from the get go. We’ll see if we <em>really</em> end up with a new prez in 08. Perhaps there will be a catastrophe right before that, and Bush’s new directives will come in quite handy.</p>
<p>All the Hillary haters will be glad about that!</p>
<p>The author opens his essay with this inflammatory and misleading statement, presumably because he hates Bush. One would think the directive says, “George Bush”, but it says “President”. Bush got raked over the coals, unfairly in my estimation, for not mobilizing the ferdeal government to provide enough assistance in the advance of and in the wake of Katrina. Was congress blamed? No, because no reasonable person has the expectation that congress can provide any sort of swift response. In a time of catastrophy it may not even be possible for congress to assemble. If the expectation is for the president to mobilize the federal machinery in times of crisis that are less than a national catastrophy, then surely they will expect the same should a true catastrophy befall the US.</p>