How does Bush weaken Environoment acts so easily?

[omega366]

Doesnt it require an Act of Congress to change any laws?

 

[imported_Aelius]

No he can do whatever he wants with Executive Orders.

Google "Executive Order" and see a list of some of the stuff Bush can do. Thanks to his dad, Clinton, and those who came before them.

The fact that any president has that kind of power is scarry. The fact that Bush has it is downright frightening.

Also Google "War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933". It has never been repealed and hence gives the President the power to suspend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution if he so wishes.

Some of the executive orders allows a President to suspend Congress for at least 60 days, which in turn also suspends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By law a State of Emergency needs to be declared to allow the use of these executive orders. Thats simple since the War and Emergency Powers Act was not repealed so it can be declared at anytime. Technically the US has been under a State Emergency since 1933 so the President doesn't even need to declare it but for political reasons he usually does. Many Presidents have done so since 1933 including Vietnam and the Korean War.

Once a State of Emergency is declared FEMA takes control on the ground, if so needed. FEMA is, on the surface, an agency designed by the military to assist in disasters or other states of emergency. Some of the executive orders allow FEMA to take control, on behalf of the President, of people and organize labour camps or move people into concentration camps if security reasons warrant such a move.

If you doubt FEMA then you forget about Florida. FEMA was called in and it had the power to force people to stay indoor and they declared martial law for a time as well during the hurricane disaster.

Just Google it and learn for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Doesn't all this make you feel good about the US?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Aelius
No he can do whatever he wants with Executive Orders.

Google "Executive Order" and see a list of some of the stuff Bush can do. Thanks to his dad, Clinton, and those who came before them.

The fact that any president has that kind of power is scarry. The fact that Bush has it is downright frightening.

Also Google "War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933". It has never been repealed and hence gives the President the power to suspend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution if he so wishes.

Some of the executive orders allows a President to suspend Congress for at least 60 days, which in turn also suspends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By law a State of Emergency needs to be declared to allow the use of these executive orders. Thats simple since the War and Emergency Powers Act was not repealed so it can be declared at anytime. Technically the US has been under a State Emergency since 1933 so the President doesn't even need to declare it but for political reasons he usually does. Many Presidents have done so since 1933 including Vietnam and the Korean War.

Once a State of Emergency is declared FEMA takes control on the ground, if so needed. FEMA is, on the surface, an agency designed by the military to assist in disasters or other states of emergency. Some of the executive orders allow FEMA to take control, on behalf of the President, of people and organize labour camps or move people into concentration camps if security reasons warrant such a move.

If you doubt FEMA then you forget about Florida. FEMA was called in and it had the power to force people to stay indoor and they declared martial law for a time as well during the hurricane disaster.

Just Google it and learn for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Doesn't all this make you feel good about the US?

In that these things are available and are at times used to control people from hurting themselves or others lawlessly, I have no problem with it, and I'm as liberal as they come. It is only when it is abused that the issue will become vile to me. I am for a leader having the tools to do his/her job as he/she sees fit, as long as it is a voted in representive or surrigate of such that understands the repurcussions of abusing these powers. I would have absolutley no problem supporting assasination of a leader or surrigate abusing it to the extent you fear.

By and large, we have checks and balances. We do not stray far from it for very long, without the potential for abuse rearing its ugly head. As a democracy, we vote for these leaders and I trust in God to assure that no lasting harm can be rendered to this mass of people save it be at His hand, and not the will of any one man.

 

[imported_Aelius]

I agree that you need to be able to assert some control but this isn't checks and balances. If you wanted FEMA to have control over disaster assistance then the law would have been worded accordingly. Currently it reads more like a bad facist party speach.

There isn't anything or anyone to check or balance the power currently in place or those powers that can be put there as I outlined above. Congress legally cannot do a thing for up to 90 days.

Who says there will still be a Congress 90 days later?

Its not the person I'm fearing as much as the possibility that it can be abused without any "legal" check or balance.

Your only real check or balance is the military, whom swear to defend the country from both enemies foreign and domestic.

However don't hold your breath on God or upper brass to act if it came to that. You are talking about the "old boys club" here and they are all on the same page.

If it actually came to that it would be lower rank and file officers. Assuming they aren't arrested or killed.

I know this sounds horrificly far fetched but why even leave a loophole like that open? Its beyond any means of reason.

Last I checked the US is supposed to stand as the shining example of Democracy in the world. Not a secretive facist regime in the waiting.

That's why I think there is no reason to leave pandora's box in the open. You and I don't have control over some fruitcake who might actually open it.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Aelius

That's why I think there is no reason to leave pandora's box in the open. You and I don't have control over some fruitcake who might actually open it.

better not let Kerry into office then

 

[imported_Aelius]

None of the big named candidates should be allowed anywere near the Presidency.

Sadly you have to deal with the massive number of people whom are partisan regardless of who their leader is and are willing to vote in any numbnutz who leads their party.

It takes a big act by such a leader to actually convince the masses that they can do wrong.

I seem to recall a flag incident down South where some governor got a bellyfull from his own partisan voters for messing with the state flag. I think that was back in late 2002.

Personally I think the best President, or Prime Minister (in my country's case), would be the one that doesn't come from one of the current major parties.

Why? Protectionism.

Most voters don't know squat about the half dozen other parties that also run candidates because of bi-partisan protectionism from both Reps and Dems and their allies who tend to sponsor the debates you see on TV or read about.

Its very very rare to see other candidates on those debates. That's why people here argue over 2 or 3 possible candidates.

Because they don't even know about the others that surprisingly have ideas that would shock and surprise many people.

Alas most will never know them thanks to these facist tactics.

P.S. The last few times they even had to fight just to get on the voting card (they were barred several times cause Reps and Dems changed the rules for # of votes required to be officially on the card). Thats pathetic.