It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So you think American Presidents should have such a horse to begin with?
By your logic since we haven't had a nuclear attack on civilians in 66 years we shouldn't worry about that either.
I'm feel better already.
Originally posted by rnaa
Remember the Constitution of the United States? It makes it the job of the Congress to make laws, and the job of the President to execute those laws.
Congress passed a law at least as far back as 1950 that the President should make plans for NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS.
I'm going to repeat that for emphasis: CONGRESS told the President to prepare these plans. The President is doing his job executing the laws that Congress has passed and amended several times.
This is NOT something new, or shocking, or out of place, or out of time. It is something that must be done, and if it wasn't being done, then we should be screaming to high heaven about it. And they darn well better keep them up-to-date.
Originally posted by rnaa
President doing the job he was elected to do.
Nice try on sugar coating it for us. If they changed it because of DHS, then why didn't W change it?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The federal government has primary jurisdiction over states when it comes to -
* - Nuclear
* - Chemical
* - Biological
Absent the above, the state is responsible for disaster prep and response. FEMA cannot just walk into any disaster and take over. The state must declare a disaster at the state level and then petition the President to declare the same area a major federal disaster zone. That is how FEMA is activated for emergencies. FEMA is an umbrella organization representing 22 different federal agencies. The states affected by disaster put together a shopping list of what they need and turn it over to FEMA who then goes and gets the items. It then turns those items back over to the state for distribution.
There is absolutely no need for the Federal government to need this type of authority based solely on a disaster that falls outside the above list. Using Katrina as an example why would the federal government need to seize industry / businesses / etc etc etc for a local / state or regional disaster? There is infrastructure in place outside the disaster zones so the interruption in supplies to the affected region is temporary.
The original law is in place as a result of WWII, where the US economy moved into a full military / war time production priorities machine. There is absolutely no need for the government to take the steps listed in the EO during peace time.
The person who stated Congress is responsible for the legislation and the President is responsible for enforcing it is correct to an extent. In this case we are not looking at a bill signed into law with the President doing the signature direction (I forget the term but its where the President can express how the law should be enforced).
Changing legislation that is already signed into law is the responsibility of Congress, not the President. The use of EO's in this matter creates a substantial injury to the Constitution, specifically separation of powers as well as injury to state sovereignty.
I am all for preparedness and having the needed items in place in hopes of never needing them. However the manner in which the EO is worded is not specific enough and can be interpreted in a manner that could allow for government abuse.
Why would the government need the ability to commandeer all sectors of the economy while leaving Congress out of the loop during peace time?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by koder
I do get it... I dont care much for the EO and I think Obama is heading for a nice round of articles of impeachment.