My favorite national emergency is this one:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including but not limited to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (‘‘Act’’) (50 U.S.C. 1702), I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods and technology and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat."

- Executive order 13222, Aug. 17, 2001

The emergency in this case is that some national security related law expired and Congress didn't care enough to renew it. So the President kept the expired law in force under his "emergency" national security powers. (Clinton did this too, and this was pre-Terrorism Bush.)

The "certain boycott practices" mentioned in the Order are boycotts of Israel by foreign countries. I'm sure we can all agree that foreign countries boycotting Israel is an "unusual and extraordinary" threat to US national security, necessitating the exercise of any and all emergency Presidential powers.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000591.html

You gotta love Studs Terkel. He graduated from the University of Chicago law school but said he wanted to be a concierge in a hotel instead of practicing law.

Your snarky tone makes me think you missed Kucinich's point. It is not that he or we should be cowering in fear of 'big gov' coming to get us but that these directives are both extra-constitutional and that they allow the executive to avoid congressional approval and oversight of foreign affairs. Kucinich is one of the few congress persons who consistently stands up to executive overreach, regardless of the party in power. He is the opposite of fearful. he is angry and fighting back.

“What’s more scared than a million dollars?” I’m afraid that the answer seems to be, “The United States of America”.

-What's more scared than a buck?" I'm afraid that the answer seems to be Equitorial Guineau and beyond. His arm swept and I was lost over the boat...'

amen

Your snarky tone makes me think you missed Kucinich's point.

I think you need to think again.

john in california

NomadUK is right that I didn't mean to snark Kucinich or Terkel. I like them both a lot.

Keeping everyone afraid is an old game, but so much more can be done with television and film than with billboards. Being trapped with Fox or CNN or MSNCB on in the background for any length of time is enough to disorient anyone. And disorientation is itself frightening, as those with experience with Alzheimers especially know. (But it must be addictive, because people seem to miss it once they get used to it.)

It's great that Kucinich points out the "national emergency" racket. Most in Congress are too busy fundraising and/or too empty-headed and/or apathetic to notice.

But my favorite for today is 'so very many emergencies' just for that priceless pseudyonym, though the comment is good substantively too.

Excellent post. Fear the key that unlocks the door into the collective unconscious.

But the fear-mongers in the national security apparatus, and their fainting media handmaidens, are not "The United States." The people are the United States. And most people are far more afraid of their own government overseers than any ginned-up foreign bogeyman.

Like telling a plantation slave that it's not the guy with the bullwhip he should worry about, but Napoleon.

Don't confuse the tick for the dog.

I think states of national emergency have been fairly common for many years (at least since Reagan - I think we had a national emergency due to the Sandanistas). The reason is simple - many laws have exceptions for national emergencies, and leave it to the president to decide when we're in one. So if the president wanted to do something that was against the law, but didn't want to bother to get Congress to change the law, he declared a state of national emergency. Generally most people never hear that we are in an state of emergency, because we are only in the technical sense.

Mike B

I don't know much about this, but if you or anyone else wants to know all about it, The Google has identified the following Congressional Research Service report on National Emergency Powers:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

N E

According to that list (if I read it correctly), we are not now under 3 states of emergency, but about 20.

Mike B

I counted 19 that hadn't been revoked as of the publication of that 2007 CRS Report. I haven't studied this and don't understand why it's necessary. To me, it does smack of a way for Congress to pass any hot potato it wants to the executive branch without having responsibility or accountability, and for the executive branch to cut Congress out of the loop. That seems to be how 'checks and balances' actually works a lot of the time.

I still cannot decide if the problem is:

i. The great success of the Bush regime was in turning a sizable portion of the American people into ignorant fear-crazed hate-filled bigots, or

ii. The great success of the Bush regime was in making it acceptable for a sizable portion of the American people to admit that they were ignorant fear-crazed hate-filled bigots, or

iii. The great success of the Bush regime was in finding policies that made a sizable portion of the American people pretend that they were ignorant fear-crazed hate-filled bigots, because they really liked the policies that were predicated thereupon.

bill jones

You forgot 'all of the above'. The funny thing is, i'm not even trying to be funny.