Oh, stuff like defining the government to be preserved as the executive branch, and muddling the line of Presidential succession. Probably overreacting.
I imagine it focuses on the executive branch because it's a Presidential directive and to define strict rules on Congress might be out of scope and, hence, unconstitutional. As to the succession stuff I quote the following:
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate
Yeah. I'm just hypersensitive to anything coming out of Mr. Signing Statement's office with language like "This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with...provisions of the Constitution ..." -- after all, he thinks that the Constitution provides for a Unitary Executive.
One of these days I should track down the last couple of versions and see what's changed.
7 comments:
I'll bite - how so? Seems like fail-safe planning to me.
Oh, stuff like defining the government to be preserved as the executive branch, and muddling the line of Presidential succession. Probably overreacting.
I imagine it focuses on the executive branch because it's a Presidential directive and to define strict rules on Congress might be out of scope and, hence, unconstitutional. As to the succession stuff I quote the following:
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate
Looks pretty much in line with the law to me.
Yeah. I'm just hypersensitive to anything coming out of Mr. Signing Statement's office with language like "This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with...provisions of the Constitution ..." -- after all, he thinks that the Constitution provides for a Unitary Executive.
One of these days I should track down the last couple of versions and see what's changed.
The previous one was never actually released.
Interesting. The older one makes no mention of the 1947 law. I wonder if that's because it's simply implied?
The old 1981 Al Haig gaffe continues to haunt us to this day.
*wince*
Post a Comment