imported post
I gave it a quick once-over. I didn't see anything that I could get worked up about. Near as I can tell, they're providing for continuity in gov't in the event of a nat'l emergency.
Can the President just declare an emergency over, say, immigration? Sure. Can he make a power-grab? Not likely. Too many opposition party faithful.
Lets say there is a big emergency, say a nuclear strike. OK, what might they do differently if there was no directive?
What if there is a really destructive nat'l emergency? Once things get really shaky, I don't think it will matter a whole lot whether there is a directive or not. Anybody holding the reins of power can pull a Chavez or Castro with or without a directive. All a directive might do is give himmore organization to do it more easily, assuming enough people in gov't are willing to go along with it. Then there are the states to contend with.
If a President really wanted to impress me, he'd include language to recognize and support the states and states rights.
Also, its not like the country will fall apart if the federal gov't isn't functioning. Governors can get things under control in their areas. In fact they'd better be ready to, given the effectiveness of the federal gov't with recent natural disasters. Off the cuff, I'd say strong state gov'ts are our best defense against agression. The bad guys may not give the state gov'ts sufficient significance. I can't imagine Virginia falling to its knees just because Norfolk or Washington suddenly becomes radioactive. Only Russia or China could irradiate all fifty state capitols.
I'ma whole lot more worried about the steady erosion of liberty, the increase of the police and nanny state, etc. than I am aboutthis directive.
