What is going on concerning the directive...

[coco77]

that gives bush all governmental powers in case of an emergency.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.

If a "catastrophic emergency" -- which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster -- occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

What are the Dems saying about this if anything?

[NYCGirl]

1. According to the ACLU, it's nothing new or different:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public, to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

The concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. Christopher Kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at Miami University Ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why Congress hasn’t done the same thing.

[babylonsister]

2. I don't know of any Dem that has addressed it, but here's a differing

opinion from the ACLU's:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1011037

[Igel]

3. Because the one signed by Clinton--

and never declassified--probably said something very similar.

But I think it was tweaked to account for 9/11 and Katrina.

[Wiley50]

4. I've been ruminating on this for a couple of weeks now and

My gut tells me if they play this card
it won't be until after the elections in Nov 08

and then, only if someone they can't control wins

for the time being they'll just let things slide
unless we are able to corner them
with impeachment proceedings or something

And that don't look like it's happening
no matter how I wish it were

More time for me to stockpile bullets, I guess