If there was some type of emergency. A flood, a fire, a terror attack that kills 100 people, a cyber threat, a flu outbreak that kills a dozen, should the president be allowed to take over every branch of government and every business?
"Homeland Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51"
*Pros and cons please
2007-11-16 02:09:30 · 4 answers · asked by vote_usa_first 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Nazi Germany and other places tried that type of "government", I think it's called a dictatorship. Doesn't seem to work too well where ever it's tried. So, NO !!
2007-11-16 02:55:48 · answer #1 · answered by Easy B Me II 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sr. Chavez believes the answer to your question is "YES", and he doesn't think any emergency is required. That's a dictator for you.
In an emergency of specified type, there may be a case for such authority. I suggest filing suit in Federal District Court to force the issue of what and when constitutes such an emergency under the law.
2007-11-16 10:14:24 · answer #2 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To a certain extent yes because when there is a crisis people need a leader to delegate duties. so we would need the presient to take over and run all the government and business activities. No because when someone gets to be a leader they tend to do what they want when they want therefore creating other unnecessary problems in the country..
2007-11-16 10:21:18 · answer #3 · answered by msafiri 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, You can't count on the Mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana to help.
2007-11-16 10:12:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋