Zen and the art of Presidential usurpation
February 16, 2006 2:11 PM   Subscribe

Back when President Bush declared a state of emergency, then did it again, and people were wondering Could Terrorism Result In A Constitutional Dictator? I was reminded of the UN invasion paranoia under Clinton and Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, which said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." and the question was have we been living in a state of National Emergency for over six decades? Back then it was easy to write off with the tinfoil hat crowd. But it seems throughout the nation's history, presidents have in fact been using executive orders on "emergencies" to circumvent the Constitution's division of power.
posted by Smedleyman (21 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Good post...the Senate Report is fascinating, as is the compilations of declarations of national emergencies by the different presidents.
posted by edverb at 2:42 PM on February 16, 2006


As one of the tin foil brigade...may I just say: We tried to tell you...but would anyone listen? Ohhhhh no.
posted by dejah420 at 2:53 PM on February 16, 2006




Speaking of the Constitution's division of power, I thought this was interesting:

How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights.
posted by homunculus at 3:27 PM on February 16, 2006


This will be tough to swallow but give it a try. Remember when you were very young and were told about the tooth fairy? Do you still believe it? Remember when you were young and you leanred about Santa coming down the chimney at Christmas time and you believed it" Do you still believe it? Now take a good ahrd look at the history of your country and try, just try, to imagine that you were told things that, well, shaded some big truths.
posted by Postroad at 4:09 PM on February 16, 2006


Well, according to sime, extraodinary times require extraordinary measures....

...including that of outing agents ?

Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed Wednesday that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information

Cheney's disclosure comes a week after reports that Libby testified under oath that he was authorized by superiors in 2003 to disclose highly sensitive prewar information to reporters.

And here is the relevant Fox News Transcript


HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

HUME: There is.

CHENEY: Yeah.

HUME: Have you done it?

CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.

HUME: Have you —

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.


Full text
posted by elpapacito at 4:31 PM on February 16, 2006


That "(CROSSTALK)" was basically Hume asking Cheney if he had ever unilaterally declassified information.
posted by cosmonaught at 5:23 PM on February 16, 2006


Those who can defend these villains boggle my mind.
posted by squirrel at 5:33 PM on February 16, 2006


This post recalls philosopher Giorgio Agamben's theories of "states of exception." See here, or here or here....
posted by rumbles at 7:00 PM on February 16, 2006


I think it's time to just trash it all and start over--who's up for a Constitutional Convention?
posted by amberglow at 8:04 PM on February 16, 2006


Only if we all get to wear powdered wigs.
posted by Balisong at 8:10 PM on February 16, 2006


In high school I wanted a Constitutional Convention. Then a few years later I realized who would actually be making the decisions and became very wary of such a move.
posted by infowar at 8:24 PM on February 16, 2006


We don't need a constitutional convention at this point... We need Committees of Correspondence.

I've thought about this off and on since Katrina, and the community discussion in the threads.

We need to find a way to unite those who are left and right libertarian minded individuals and figure out solutions. We need it to be popular. I listen to wackos like Jack Blood and Alex Jones and Derry Brownfield whilst at work, and even though I disagree with some of the more protectionist/racist/xenophobic stances, there is a strong anti-federal government view that I think a lot of people on the left (who were more friendly to the federal government until now) are beginning to see as a potentially legitimate view.

The left and right can come together on the issue of community control (as the Greens are already pro-local) and anti-NAFTA, amongst other issues...

But we really need to figure out what sort of framework we need, and we need to get our communities organized and "reach across the aisle" as it were, and find what unites us, and figure out how we can live with our differences. "Unity through diversity" is the liberal mantra, yet for some reason, we want everyone to be exactly like us.

I'm a big proponent of libertarian-socialist bio-regional federalism... I think working at smaller, local levels is the only way forward.

The real issue isn't forming a Constitutional Convention, nor Committees of Correspondence, but rather, keeping sure that we are free to do such things, or somehow not destroyed be an ever-encroaching fascism.

The other thing to note is that in the Declaration of Independence it says:

"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

1) People are gonna have to suffer a lot more than they are right now in order to rise up and gain control of their government again.

2) In the intervening time, those of us who feel that we need to find solutions *together* (not based on some fucking bullshit Communist, Populist, whatever ideology), need to work together so when the time comes, our ideas can be shared and we can grow a movement.

3) It is not only a right, but a fucking DUTY to throw off such government.

A question then becomes, how do we do this? Of course local community action is important... But to build the correspondence across the network requires communication... It requires knowing who our allies are. How do we do this? How can we not be targetted by "Homeland Security" (is anyone else disturbed by how often the phrase "Homeland" is used so cavalierly? It reeks of fascist Fatherland/Motherland.

Just a few thoughts...
posted by symbioid at 9:30 PM on February 16, 2006


sorry for such a long screen, btw...
posted by symbioid at 9:30 PM on February 16, 2006


Exactly what infowar said, re, Constitutional Convention.
posted by Goofyy at 9:37 PM on February 16, 2006


oops... screed
posted by symbioid at 9:42 PM on February 16, 2006


You don't get it, do you? It is very difficult separating the powers is such a difficult job. That's why we give them all to the same person (and also the additional "bringer of the end times" power): This way we don't need to worry about whose power it is, it is all the same guy!
posted by qvantamon at 5:42 AM on February 17, 2006


symbiosis: The internet (and before that, the phone) has so quickly replaced the geographically-mapped postal network that existed before it. Letter writing and correspondence were huge!

Now the majority of distant correspondence goes on electronically, which is to say, it goes on on a substrate that can be shut down at any time, leaving the end-points with no fallback communication network.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:39 AM on February 17, 2006


sonofsamiam: I would argue, then, that this requires us to build up the alternative "substrate" of communication. Some call it "sneaker-net". :)

However, this goes back to what I was saying about community. Ultimately this has to be built up locally, and it's why the progressive left and libertarian right should be able to forge ahead, because both believe in local control... Yes, there has to be some other way to communicate beyond the "internet".

The other issue is: What's to stop people from building alternative networks? Especially now that wireless networking is available? There's lots of questions to be answered, of course, but the point is, why aren't we discussing these things?

Oh right... We've got Big Brother 9 to watch (while the REAL Big Brother ever embraces the panopticon-spectacle that is it's own citizenry in order to "protect" us...)
posted by symbioid at 9:56 AM on February 17, 2006


very good, thanks Smedleyman
posted by matteo at 10:38 AM on February 17, 2006


When was the last time the US Congress had the cajones to declare war ? 1941 ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:37 PM on February 17, 2006


« Older Supplemental catfight   |   Still crazy after all these years Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments