|
|
The publication of National Security Presidential
Directive 51 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) on 9 May 2007, now
available on the White House’s web site, represents another major stage
in the devolution of the United States from a constitutional republic to a
Caesaristic police state. Inadvertently, though, it exposes the primary
danger to the continuation of its own power that the Establishment now fears.
As well, it emphasizes the impossibility of any succor for the American
people from the present “two” major political parties. And thus
it should actually energize We the People into doing what is necessary to
salvage freedom and prosperity in this country, before things get entirely
out of hand.
(1) The
unconstitutionality of NSPD-51 is blatant.
NSPD-51
“establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of
Federal Government structures and operations * * * provides continuity
requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides
guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private
sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated
national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national
security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and
recovery from a national emergency” (paragraph (1)).
To
be sure, “executive departments and agencies” are parts of the
Executive Branch of the General Government, in principle subject to the
President. But other than the Treasury, which the Constitution itself
requires (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), all “executive
departments and agencies” are originally creatures of Congress, not the
President. Therefore, their very existences, purposes, powers, personnel, and
“continuity requirements” must be the products of statutes
(“Laws,” as the Constitution generally terms them), not
Presidential “directives” (for which the Constitution makes no
provision whatsoever). Indeed, other than “Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the supreme Court,” the
President may not constitutionally even “nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate * * * appoint” any “Officers of
the United States” except those “which shall be established by Law,”
or appoint any “inferior Officers” except those whose
“Appointment” “Congress may by Law vest * * * in the
President alone” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). That is, other than
the President himself, the composition, structure, and operations of the Executive
Branch are completely subject to the legislative supremacy of Congress.
As
for maintaining appropriate “continuity” with respect to these
matters, Congress enjoys ample—and exclusive—constitutional power
to do whatever is needed. In general, “[a]ll legislative Powers”
the Constitution “grant[s] shall be vested in * * * Congress”,
not to any degree or for any purpose in the President (Article I, Section 1).
And in particular, Congress alone is entitled “[t]o make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” not only its
own powers, but also “all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof”, including the powers of the President (Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18). In this process, the President’s only forms of
participation are: (i) to “recommend to [Congress’s]
Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”
(Article I, Section 3); and (ii) either to “approve” “Bill[s]
which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” or
to “return [such] Bill[s], with his Objections” (Article I,
Section 7, Clause 2). The President cannot himself enact “Laws.”
Instead, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
(Article II, Section 3).
Even
if Congress has been remiss in not providing for the necessary and proper
“continuity requirements” for “executive departments and
agencies,” the President cannot on that account take unilateral action
on his own initiative. America is not subject to “government by
default.” In the absence of appropriate action by the constitutionally
authorized Branch of government, the country does not find itself at the
mercy of the self-appointed “leadership” of some other,
unauthorized Branch of government. Any such “leadership” is not
an act of “government” at all, but instead is usurpation at best,
and a crime at worst (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241 and 242). If
the President honestly believes that this country needs “a comprehensive
national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and
operations,” he should present to Congress what he considers to be the
“necessary and expedient” legislation for Congress to enact, and
await Congress’s agreement with his assessment (Article II, Section 3).
Moreover,
while the United States remains a federal republic and a free country, who is
the President to provide “guidance for State, local, territorial, and
tribal governments, and private sector organizations,” as NSPD-51
claims to do? Precisely where does the Constitution mandate to the President
the role of universal teacher? Nowhere—because such an idea is
positively un-American. For the most recent and ominous parallel, one must
look to Mao Tse-tung, “The Great Helmsman” of Red China, whose
“Mao Tse-tung Thought” appeared in the little red book countless
millions of politically zombified Chinese Communists waved during mass
demonstrations. Admittedly, the trip from America, even as corrupted as she
is today, to something like Red China in the heyday of Mao Tse-tung is, no
doubt, still a long one. But, as the Chinese aphorism has it, “a
journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.” So, in humility
and prudence, any President would do well to learn before he claims to teach,
and therefore first to seek guidance from, rather than purport to impart it
to, his fellow countrymen.
Not
surprisingly, as the supposed source of its authority NSPD-51 employs an
open-ended invocation of “emergency” conditions:
“[c]atastrophic emergency means any incident, regardless of location,
that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or
disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, environment, economy, or
government functions” (paragraph 2(a)). (One should notice how, as the
break-up crisis approaches, the appeal to “emergency” alone no
longer suffices, and politicians come to employ increasingly hysterical
adjectives—today, “[c]atastrophic emergency;” tomorrow,
perhaps, “apocalyptic emergency”—as if the degree of power
to be seized depended only upon the draftsman’s facility with the
dictionary, rather than upon his knowledge of the Constitution.)
As
I have explained in previous commentaries, “emergency powers” are
bunkum. The new twist in NSPD-51 is that some “[c]atastrophic
emergency” supposedly could occur outside the United States, in some
other country entirely. Or it could involve the failure of foreign banks,
which “severely affect[ed] the U.S. * * * economy.” Or it could
be a claimed consequence of supposed “global warming” or some
other natural condition that might “severely affect[ ] the U.S. * * *
environment.”
In
virtue of these cataclysmic threats, NSPD-51 then asserts a breathtakingly
unprecedented Presidential power: “[e]nduring constitutional government
* * * means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as
a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and
with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the
branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is
governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute
constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession,
appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability of the National
Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency” (paragraph 2(e)).
Needless
to emphasize, NSPD-51 does not identify where and how the Constitution
licenses the President to “coordinate[ ]” “cooperative
effort[s] among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the
Federal Government.” But the very claim to do so exposes the
substance—or, perhaps more descriptively, the absence—of his
“proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”
For, if the President will himself “coordinate[ ]” these
“cooperative effort[s],” presumably Congress and the Judiciary
must accept, accede to, or acquiesce in his “coordinat[ion].”
Certainly all three Branches cannot “coordinate[ ],” each in its
own idiosyncratic manner. Neither can each of the three Branches go it own
way and still “coordinate[ ]” with the others. One must lead, and
the others follow.
NSPD-51
states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to maintain a
comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of
Operations and Continuity of Government programs to ensure the preservation
of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing
performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions”
(paragraph 3). Yet it also provides that “[c]ontinuity requirements
shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and
agencies” only (paragraph 4). Of course, the verbal limitation to
“executive departments and agencies” is necessitated by its being
a Presidential “directive” which, even if constitutional, cannot
apply to any other Branch of the General Government. But how, then, is
“the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and
effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and
Continuity of Government programs” to be achieved for Congress and the
Judiciary? And how is “the preservation of our form of government under
the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential
Functions under all conditions” to be achieved without them? Or, in the
minds of those who drafted NSPD-51, does only the Executive Branch count any
more? What purpose will be served by preserving the “continuity”
of the Executive Branch alone, while discontinuity or chaos grips the
Legislative and Judicial Branches—except, perhaps, the purpose of
creating the condition precedent for an overarching executive Decidership
operating under some species of “martial law?”
Indeed,
one need not be suffering from terminal paranoia to deduce exactly this
intent from the assertion in NSPD-51 that “[t]he President shall lead
the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional
government” (paragraph 6). Not just “the activities of the
Executive Branch,” but “the activities of the Federal
Government” as a whole! Thus, “the separation of powers,”
Congress’s power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper”, and the President’s own duty to “take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed” are submerged in das Fuhrer Prinzip
(the Leader Principle). And every historically literate person knows where
that has led in the past.
Most
of the rest of NSPD-51 consists of a table of bureaucratic organization and
duties that might form the kernel of a reasonable plan for maintaining the
“continuity” of the Executive Branch—if submitted to
Congress for incorporation into a “necessary and proper” law.
Mandated directly by the President, however, it is usurpation. And if allowed
to stand by Congress, it will mark a giant step in the systematic destruction
of constitutional government in this country and its replacement by a
brownshirted Caesarism.
(2) Caesarism
of any color, though, is certainly not the primary fear of the people who
drafted NSPD-51. The document lists a number of concerns:
The
following [National Essential Functions] are the foundation for all
continuity programs and capabilities * * * and therefore sustaining the
following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government
leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects
the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring
the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution,
including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining
the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the
United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice
perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people,
property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic
consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public
confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the
national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. (paragraph
5)
But
surely no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in
the slightest degree,
- in “[e]nsuring the continued functioning
of our form of government under the Constitution” —or it
would not be promoting the North American Union;
- in “[d]efending the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—or
it would not be harboring Neo-Conzis and other dangerous subversives in
public office;
- in “bringing to justice perpetrators of
crimes or attacks against the United States or its
people”—or it would not be demonizing patriots who
justifiably find the official explanation of 9/11 as unsatisfactory as
the official fable that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated
President Kennedy; or
- in “maintaining the trust and confidence
of the American people”—or it would not be persisting in
policies that have caused George W. Bush to be widely condemned as the
worst President in American history (so far).
Similarly,
no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in the
slightest degree, in “[m]aintaining and fostering effective relations
with foreign nations”, when almost its every initiative in foreign
policy is directed at denouncing, threatening, subverting, attacking, or
occupying any nation that refuses to toe the globalistic line emanating from
the Disgrace of Columbia.
So,
too, can anyone expect a “rapid and effective response to and recovery
from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident” from the
bureaucratic apparatus that orchestrated the fiasco in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina?
And
exactly how does the present Administration expect the General Government to
“[p]rovid[e] for critical * * * services that address the national
health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States” when, for
instance, the Ponzi pyramid of Social Security finally collapses?
Edwin
Vieira
|
|
