Tammy Bruce: Corsi on President Bush's Power Grab

Corsi on President Bush's Power Grab

With the amnesty bill throw-down upon us, I have been remiss in blogging abut a few things, this issue being one of them.

Columnist and author Jerome Corsi joined me today on Tammy Radio to discuss a recent column of his which sheds more light on President Bush's presidential order, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which gives him virtual dictatorial powers in the event he declares a national emergency.

Strangely, this bizarre act by the president has received very little EM coverage. Corsi hopes to change, as do I. Both of us voted for President Bush twice, and both of us see this as an dynamic, unconstitutional overreach, reflective of the increasing secrecy surrounding the Bush White House. It also indicates what he's willing to do to bypass having to deal with reactions from both congress and we, the people.

Bush makes power grab

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator...

When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Jerome is a constitutional scholar. Many of you remember him best as a co-author of the Swift Boat veterans book about John Kerry during the 2004 election. Jerome, like most of us, has supported the president for years, and we should all be as disturbed as he is by the implications of this act. All presidents have had orders which describe what actions should be taken in the event of a national emergency, but Bush's eclipses all of them with the sweeping powers it grants the president.

I highlighted a few of the terms in the snippet I provided for you. First, note that it is the president who decides what a 'national emergency' occurs which triggers his dictatorial powers, not congress, not the Supreme Court, just him. Secondly, the act shifts from defining the emergency as an act that causes mass cuasualities, to one that may just affect the loosely termed, "environment." This could mean an outbreak of 'bird flu' or maybe acid rain is on the horizon. It would be a mistake to presume that they mean a nuclear or biological attack. if that;'s what they meant, they would have specified it. They don't, which means they want to framework as loose as possible.

The president seems to be holding us in greater and greater contempt, evidenced most recently by his position on the amnesty bill, his continued silence on the eminent domain issue, his abandonment of broder agents Ramos and Compean (also covered extensively by Corsi) and most recently his comments just this morning about those of us opposed to the amnesty bill. I'll blog on that next.

Obviously, read the entire Corsi article. There has been additional coverage as well. Here's that background.

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

George W. Bush Is GOP's Bill Clinton

Posted by Tammy · May 29, 2007 12:42 PM · Permalink
Fed Incompetence | Just Wrong | Orwellian | Politics

Comments

I have yet to see any "power grab". I've read the directive completely and it is nothing more than an update of the old Cold War directives for the continuation of the government in the event of a nuclear attack.
What exactly should happen if Congress is massacred in a terrorist attack? If a couple of cities are destroyed by terrorists nuclear weapons?
This directive partially comes because of the Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco's response to hurricane Katrina - and they were the ones where the real blame goes for the disaster. Refusing to request the help from the federal government - and then blaming the feds for not giving the help when by law they couldn't - what exactly is the president supposed to do? "You refused my help, and then blamed me when that help didn't arrive in time."

If you want to know what's really going on, read the directive itself. There's no "power grab" there. I'm surprised Tammy got taken in by this.

[It could be, of course, that Tammy isn't 'taken in' but has a different read on this than you do. Maybe that's because she doesn't have an R after her name and you do? Just a thought.--ed.]

Posted by: John H Schneider II at May 29, 2007 02:01 PM

The story was covered in the Washington Post on May 10. Bush Changes Continuity Plan

Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to an independent Continuity of Government Commission, said the order "is a more explicit embrace of what has been since 9/11 an implicit but fairly clear set of assumptions."

It is a frightening document to read. I respect Mr. Corsi's credentials, but I'm withholding judgment until I learn some more about it. My guess is reading any Executive Order could make your hair turn white.

Posted by: pat_s at May 29, 2007 04:41 PM

I think this is an order that goes into effect if there is a decapitation attack on the US, such as an Islamic nuclear attack on the Capitol in Washington. (It would probably be accompanied by simultaneous nuclear attacks on at least New York, Houston, and Seattle according to some opinions I have seen.) In such a case there would be no Congress, no Supreme Court, and probably no President Bush left alive, since, unlike in the cold war days, there would not be any advance warning to allow the leaders to seek shelter. So this order would probably be executed by an acting President. I think Bush is correct to update the old cold war procedures.

Posted by: James Williams at May 29, 2007 04:53 PM

We are supposed to be heading into another bad hurricane season, and we have two recent cases of Democrat governors refusing Federal help and then condemning the Bush Administration for its slow response. So I can understand why the Bush Administration would want something like this in place. Still, it's the wrong solution to the problem. The correct solution is fewer idiot governors.

Posted by: Ferdy at May 29, 2007 05:02 PM

I'm also confused as to where the 'power grab' is throughout this.

This directive replaces / supercedes the Clinton Administration Presidential Decision Directive 67 from 10/21/98. The full text of that directive was not fully released - so - if anything - conspiracy wonks should be up in arms about that.

Government continuity directives and plans date back to the Truman Administration and the concerns of a massive nuclear Cold War attack - and the Reagan / Bush 41 Administrations also issued Presidential directives on Federal Government continuity.

Despite Jerome Corsi's work co-writing the Swift Boat Vet book - he is also a leading advocate promoting the North American Union conspiracy theory - including 'dangerous' actions of the SPP coordinating North American defense efforts between the US, Canada, and Mexico - and the coming of the 'unified currency - the 'amero'. This history of seeing conspiracies and threats on the slightest evidence taints his credibility on this issue.

Now, if he would cogently document the specifics and differences between the Directives / Acts on this subject dating back to 1947 and clearly demonstrates a pattern of excessive steps - or a Bush 43 directive that is far out of step of the previous ones .... I would have the information needed to reconsider my position.

I would think that for an investigative reporter trying to demonstrate a real threat - this would be a logical step....but one that Corsi hasn't undertaken. Why not?

Posted by: Athos at May 29, 2007 05:13 PM

Nope, I took off the "R" after my name after they refused to defend themselves in the last election. The "D" mantra was "HOW DARE YOU SAY I'M NOT PATRIOTIC!" and everytime the "R" heard it, they caved. That was the last straw. Just ask Jerry Doyle.

Posted by: John H Schneider II at May 29, 2007 05:24 PM

I can't speak for this directive without the proper context and or reading it, which I don't presently have the time for.

Of course, Tammy's integrity holds some weight with me.

I am sure, however, that our President is a boob. He appears to be incapable of nuance - the real kind. This immigration is the last straw for me.

American Liberty is currently in danger.

Posted by: LiveFreeOrDie at May 29, 2007 06:20 PM

The problem with the Directive is that it gives the President power to declare when it might go into effect, including times when there is no damage to continuity of the country, only what the President perceives might be a threat of damage. (Sections 2(b),(c) and 12). Such power should be authorized by Congress, not appropriated to himself by the President. (See Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution regarding Congress' power to make rules for the governance and regulation of the armed forces, and to provide for the organizing, arming, training, and discipline of the militia. All this is assumed by and the subject of the Directive. That Clinton did it also, is no excuse.

Posted by: St. Thor at May 30, 2007 07:16 AM

I'm not impressed with Jerome Corsi's work, it seems sloppy and leaves me unconvinced. He indulges in conspiracy theory and exaggeration for dramatic effect. While there may be some validity to some of his claims, he too often overstates his case, and thereby diminishes his credibility.

Posted by: chas at May 30, 2007 09:21 AM

In my reading of the directive, I find the argument that the President has overreaching authority for a declaration under a mere threat to be specious.

2b defines "Catastrophic Emergency" - and specifically references "extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;" - this hardly appears to define an emergency as something that can be declared on a whim - without severe impact on the operation of the present structure of the Federal Government.

2c defines the term 'Continuity of Government' and specifically references the area of the President's responsibility - the Executive Branch.

12 only defines a readiness level measurement that will have certain triggers within the Executive Branch departments at which point contingency plans would be implemented. This clearly is nothing other than a continuity version of the DoD Defcon levels - with each level mandating / initiating specific action plans.

As for overreaching the Constitutional authority of the Legislative or Judicial Branches of government - item 9 clearly defines that each branch of government is responsible for their own planning - some executive oversight is needed - and has been needed since the post-WW2 threat of the Cold War. Item 21accepts the limitations of separation of powers and again clearly defines the impacted areas as part of the executive branch. In fact, it says clearly "subject to the availability of appropriations;" which is an acceptance of the Legislative branches responsibility to provide appropriations for funding continuity initiatives.

At no point do I see this directive eliminating, replacing, re-assigning powers from other branches to the Executive - which clearly would be unconstitutional and an overreach by the Chief Executive.

There is nothing in this document that goes beyond what major corporations would establish within their own business continuity planning (disaster recovery efforts). To me, it is just a disaster recovery framework to define and develop updated plans to ensure that essential government functions can continue under the current legal structure (Constitution). It would be irresponsible for the Executive Branch (or other branches) to not put into place an updated plan to ensure the continuity of the branch / government operations and command structure in the event of a catastrophic emergency.

Posted by: Athos at May 30, 2007 11:01 AM

By Category

By Month

Corsi on President Bush's Power Grab

Comments

Post a comment