dictatorial powers
Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?
Submitted by MichaelVail on Mon, 10/22/2007 - 5:49pm.
Oh, god. I'm reluctant to write this particular column. I've been scarred by this kind of story before. I've learned that it's difficult to write about the sources of paranoia without spreading paranoia.
But the subject, NSPD-51—that's National Security Presidential Directive 51—and the attendant explosion of blogospheric paranoia about it deserve attention. Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that NSPD-51 is a blueprint for a coup in the guise of plans for "continuity of government" in the event of a national emergency (such as a terrorist attack during an election campaign). Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that it will be used as a pretext for canceling the upcoming presidential election and preserving "continuity" of this administration in office.
Why Bush Is Always Right: Junior Sets The Precedent For His Successor's Dictatorial Powers
Submitted by MichaelVail on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 2:15am.
For 220 years, an exemplary separation of powers has prevailed in the United States of America. Congress passes laws, the president executes laws and courts interpret them and rescind them when necessary. After congress works out a law, it is presented to the president who then according to the constitution has two possibilities: signing the law or sending the bill back with his objections. If the president rejects the revised bill, the congress can overturn it with a two-thirds majority. Thus the president has no real right of veto – the term does not occur in the constitution. In 1998, the Supreme Court declared the president has no partial veto right to annul sections of a law disagreeable to him.
Bookmark this site
Bookmark this page
Make Us your homepage
