Unprecedented Power Grab?

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
88,397
Likes
53,328
#1
On March 16, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction — all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis.
Click to expand...

Note: Ronald Reagan validated executive orders, and this is what you get 30 years later. This is the kind of thing that makes us libertarians despise Reagan.

Obama authorizes himself to declare martial law | Times 247
 
#2
#2
n_huffhines said:
Note: Ronald Reagan validated executive orders, and this is what you get 30 years later. This is the kind of thing that makes us libertarians despise Reagan.

Obama authorizes himself to declare martial law | Times 247
Click to expand...

I read the article, yet I have a question to which you may have the answer: must the state of war and/or emergency be declared by Congress? If so, this is still a huge power grab by the Executive, but it is checked by Congress; if not, ...
 
#3
#3
I believe that this applies in the case of a "national emergency" so it doesn't even have to be war. It could be Hurricane Katrina, or anything the executive deems a national emergency, as far as I can tell.
 
#4
#4
I'm pretty sure there is a statutory requirement for this and it has been handled by EO at least twice before. The EO requires the Defense Production Act Committee to assess and report on a variety of national-level resources that might be necessary in times of a major war, i.e. industrial production capacity, critical natural resources etc--anything that might be needed. To me, this is one of the critical things the federal government should do as part of the requirement to defend the nation. No one wants to get caught in a shooting war and then find out we don't have enough bullets. Nor do we want our bullet manufactures to sell them to the enemy...
 
#6
#6
YorkVol said:
I'm pretty sure there is a statutory requirement for this and it has been handled by EO at least twice before. The EO requires the Defense Production Act Committee to assess and report on a variety of national-level resources that might be necessary in times of a major war, i.e. industrial production capacity, critical natural resources etc--anything that might be needed. To me, this is one of the critical things the federal government should do as part of the requirement to defend the nation. No one wants to get caught in a shooting war and then find out we don't have enough bullets. Nor do we want our bullet manufactures to sell them to the enemy...
Click to expand...

I think a government that can tell you to whom to sell is the enemy. Why shouldn't we sell to our enemies? Cause the US government doesn't want to compete for that revenue?
 
#7
#7
n_huffhines said:
I think a government that can tell you to whom to sell is the enemy. Why shouldn't we sell to our enemies? Cause the US government doesn't want to compete for that revenue?
Click to expand...

Disagree. We have export compliance laws in effect for a reason. We arent' going to sell full-up F-22's to China for a reason. The government is still responsible for national defense, and this is a national defense issue.

The OE referred to in the OP is troubling, but I admit I didn't read it yet.
 
#8
#8
n_huffhines said:
I think a government that can tell you to whom to sell is the enemy. Why shouldn't we sell to our enemies? Cause the US government doesn't want to compete for that revenue?
Click to expand...

If not, then LockheedMartin and Raytheon would start wars to increase their bottom line.-
 
#9
#9
Is this one of those "reauthorization things" that every president does or is this an entirely new issue.
 
#11
#11
n_huffhines said:
Or they would just financially support politicians who take us to war, like they do now.
Click to expand...

True. Never-the-less, I'm comfortable making sure they keep the best stuff for us to use, especially because we a) paid them to research and develop it and b) are already paying top dollar for the items.
 
#12
#12
YorkVol said:
True. Never-the-less, I'm comfortable making sure they keep the best stuff for us to use, especially because we a) paid them to research and develop it and b) are already paying top dollar for the items.
Click to expand...

Right. With Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon, etc...the government technically owns the hardware anyway, so they can say who they do and do not sell to.
 
#13
#13
YorkVol said:
True. Never-the-less, I'm comfortable making sure they keep the best stuff for us to use, especially because we a) paid them to research and develop it and b) are already paying top dollar for the items.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't really want Americans selling weapons to enemies. Just taking a shot and criticizing government for doing it.

I'm pretty sure we can already restrict that through trade embargoes, and that we didn't need an Executive Order for those purposes. This EO seems to do more with what is going on with out citizens within our actual borders.
 
#14
#14
n_huffhines said:
Yeah. I don't really want Americans selling weapons to enemies. Just taking a shot and criticizing government for doing it.

I'm pretty sure we can already restrict that through trade embargoes, and that we didn't need an Executive Order for those purposes. This EO seems to do more with what is going on with out citizens within our actual borders.
Click to expand...

I read the EO as pertaining more to national defense resources and capabilities rather than individual citizens.
 
#15
#15
YorkVol said:
I read the EO as pertaining more to national defense resources and capabilities rather than individual citizens.
Click to expand...

National defense is so broad. I don't see them randomly going after homeowners, but if you're an individual citizen who produces food they think is necessary to the cause, then you're under their umbrella. Even if it is strictly for narrow defense categories, it's still scary, and creates uncertainty in a bad economy.

Truman seized the steel industry. I think that's some scary ass shiz.
 
#16
#16
n_huffhines said:
National defense is so broad. I don't see them randomly going after homeowners, but if you're an individual citizen who produces food they think is necessary to the cause, then you're under their umbrella. Even if it is strictly for narrow defense categories, it's still scary, and creates uncertainty in a bad economy.

Truman seized the steel industry. I think that's some scary ass shiz.
Click to expand...


This.

If there's the slightest possibility that it gives the government the power to seize private property, then I am opposed to it.
 
#17
#17
The government seizes private property every day, mostly at the local level. There are a lot of things to criticize the current administration over, but I don't think this is one of them.
 
#18
#18
YorkVol said:
The government seizes private property every day, mostly at the local level. There are a lot of things to criticize the current administration over, but I don't think this is one of them.
Click to expand...

Why does that diminish this issue? They have to apply eminent domain law, and justify it. I don't like E.D. (heh heh), but there are at least checks and balances.

This EO by the POTUS grants the POTUS power. That's a conflict of interest, and if it weren't the government, LG would be screaming for regulation. It's unconstitutional. It's runaway government.

I view issues of these sort as part of a large snowball effect. When Lincoln skirted the constitution, he had his reasons. Then Wilson was able to skirt the constitution because he had his reasons, but also because Lincoln set the precedent. Then FDR follows Wilson's and Lincoln's precedents, and then 70 years later we end up with multiple wars, a failing economy, a joke of a budget, and almost no constitutional observance.

The precedents that the current POTUS is setting will send us farther down this path.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top