US President's Directives -- President Becomes "King"???

Voltron

Hall of Fame
I agree, it states that in the event of any major disaster the US could be completely controlled by the president, right? That's very bad for all of us, as we'd not only lose a lot of our freedoms, but we might be subject to new and possibly unfair laws regulating things during the disaster. I don't like it one bit.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Let's be a bit less naive for a moment. Unlike 1789, today we live in a world in which the entire Congress of the United States could be taken out with a very small nuclear (or very large conventional) weapon; even a small number of survivors would not constitute a quorum. More to the point, there are groups eager to do precisely that. What, then, would constitute the government of this country? How could laws be enacted? We already have mechanisms in place to deal with succession to the Presidency in the event of one, or even serial, assassinations. But what if one (or both) of the other branches of the government is destroyed. The Constitution is a remarkable document, but it did not anticipate all of the possibilities of a very changed world 200 years later.
 

armand

Banned
Let's be a bit less naive for a moment. Unlike 1789, today we live in a world in which the entire Congress of the United States could be taken out with a very small nuclear (or very large conventional) weapon; even a small number of survivors would not constitute a quorum. More to the point, there are groups eager to do precisely that. What, then, would constitute the government of this country? How could laws be enacted? We already have mechanisms in place to deal with succession to the Presidency in the event of one, or even serial, assassinations. But what if one (or both) of the other branches of the government is destroyed. The Constitution is a remarkable document, but it did not anticipate all of the possibilities of a very changed world 200 years later.
I'm impressed. Did you study political science?
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
Let's be a bit less naive for a moment. Unlike 1789, today we live in a world in which the entire Congress of the United States could be taken out with a very small nuclear (or very large conventional) weapon; even a small number of survivors would not constitute a quorum. More to the point, there are groups eager to do precisely that. What, then, would constitute the government of this country? How could laws be enacted? We already have mechanisms in place to deal with succession to the Presidency in the event of one, or even serial, assassinations. But what if one (or both) of the other branches of the government is destroyed. The Constitution is a remarkable document, but it did not anticipate all of the possibilities of a very changed world 200 years later.
I'm shocked because you usually make sense and seem very level headed. This directive, issued at the pleasure of the president, gives him dicatorial powers when he decides there has been a national "emergency".
It might be the loss of congress, or whatever,but then again, it might not! The president just has to deem a disaster has occured.
This doesn't scare you? You trust this clown that has run this country into the ground and has mortgaged off our future(though truthfully, there won't be much of a future if he gets his way and twenty million illegal aliens,or more, become citizens after jumping through a few small hoops)?
I don't.
 
Last edited:

pinky42

New User
We already have mechanisms in place to deal with succession to the Presidency in the event of one, or even serial, assassinations. But what if one (or both) of the other branches of the government is destroyed. The Constitution is a remarkable document, but it did not anticipate all of the possibilities of a very changed world 200 years later.
That mechanism was ammended when it was found insufficient. If Bush thinks that the Constitution is not equipped to deal with this possibility, let him propose an ammendment, not go an issue a directive.
 
Top