Since the Constitution is interpreted through legislation, prior arguments that "because something (our topic here)isnt in the Constitution, it isnt Constitutional can be thrown out...which leads me to state again...What proof does anybody have that the Shadow Govt (Wash Post stupid term), a contingency for a Govt emergency really.......what evidence that it is not Constitutional. Good Night. Cya in the AM
The job of the FedGov, one of the few its delegated, is our common defense. They are not planning that so much as they are planning their own survival while leaving us in the cold of nuclear winter. Bah!
Okay, I've got my morning coffee, but I cannot tarry here long. It's coffee and out the door to do the Saturday thing for me. Given those constraints, I'm going to cut right to the chase about the constitutionality of the issue.
It is quite true that this issue of a "shadow government" is not new at all. And yes, I agree that the term is inherently evil sounding, no doubt intentionally made so by the media, so we will refer to it as some others have as a continuation of government plan. Continuation of government plans have indeed been with us since the very early cold war days. The Truman administration is the narrowest focus of when these plans originated. And, just like I believe you, and some others have said, they were originated due to an actual or percieved nuclear or other threat to the United States. No argument there.
The question of constitutionality arises when we turn to the subject of how these plans came into existence. These plans, which are laws, which as we know, are subject to gauging as to their constitutionality, were created through the use of executive order. Therein lies the rub my friend. Executive order was use to create these laws. The earliest instance that I am aware of where executive order, or more properly, executive power was exercised, was in the Andrew Jackson administration, against the Cherokee to force them from their lands. The Cherokee fought this use of executive powers in the Supreme Court and won. President Jackson defied the courts order, and dared the court to try to enforce its ruling. The Cherokee indeed were forced from their land, and this led to what is called the "Trail of Tears."
I digress somewhat, but I feel that is an important example of how executive power, or order, is unconstitutional. There is no power whatsoever granted in the Constitution that allows executive order to be exercised by the President. None. It simply is not there. Jackson invented it, the Supreme Court said it's illegal, but Jackson defied them and set the unconstituional precident that we have to this day!
Okay, back to continuity of government plans. Originated through executive order. The actual first order is debatable, but it looks to me as though #10269 is about where the ball first starts rolling. #10269, when read, doesn't seem to have much to do at all with a continuity of government plan. But, as far as my limited research goes, it's the root of the tree, or at least one of the roots. It's not until #11051 that the train has really got a full head of steam, and is rolling along real nicely. And that train is still rolling today. That first root order has been amended, morphed into other orders, new orders created in conjunction with, etc, etc. Do some research into these executive orders and you can see for yourself.
Continuity of government plans had their birth through executive order. That is an illegitimate birth. To quote probably it's biggest fan, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land."
The evidence is executive order. Have a good weekend my friend.