So you feel that the United States is in the same state of 'national emergency' that it was in a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Is today's national and global atmosphere of such similarity to those dark days that legislative and executive branch contingencies designed to deal with imminent violence should continue unquestioned? The President would have you believe so.
However, some problems are real, and other 'problems' are convenient to those who would lead the sheeple.
Haven't the actions persons who 'commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism' always been a threat to the United States? So, what's new? They have been, they continue to be, and will always be a threat, and while not wanting to diminish the seriousness of such threats, I wonder what other possible reasons for branding them with the title of "National Emergency" might be in play.
The powers of a President during a period of declared emergency are incredible, and can include the suspension of rights such as habeus corpus, which protects against unlawful imprisonment, and the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the military against U.S. citizens. Other possible powers which can fall under the umbrella of 'national emergency' include the declaration of martial law and the seizure of property and possessions. The introduction of a 1973 U.S. Senate report on emergency powers stated the following about the powers of a President during a time of declared emergency:
"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."