Presidential Emergency Action Documents

Last updated

Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) are draft classified executive orders, proclamations, and messages to Congress that are prepared for the President of the United States to exercise or expand powers in anticipation of a range of emergency hypothetical worst-case scenarios, so that they are ready to sign and put into effect the moment one of those scenarios comes to pass. They are defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the "Final drafts of Presidential messages, proposed legislation proclamations, and other formal documents, including DOJ-issued cover sheets addressed to the President, to be issued in event of a Presidentially-declared national emergency." [1]

Contents

PEADs originated in the Eisenhower Administration in response to fears of the Cold War and nuclear war, and are part of what is often referred to as Continuity of Government (COG) planning. [2] Signed orders for a broad scope of issues were drafted and signed by the president intended to be used to prevent disruption of government functions. Only a very limited number of PEADs are public knowledge, and only through secondary declassified documents that mention them. Of these the trend of the orders is toward a severe reduction of liberty and civil rights for American citizens. [3] No PEADs have been declassified; however, they are referenced in FBI memoranda that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, agency manuals, and court records. [4]

The orders are classified, and none have ever been publicly released or leaked. They are therefore obscure and generally unknown to average Americans, scholars and even Executive branch officials, and are sometimes referred to as "secret powers" of the President. Some have also called into question their constitutional viability. [5] [4]

It should be understood that some presidential emergency powers stemmed from legislation that is no longer in effect. For example, the authority of the president to declare a civil defense emergency with respect to the Civil Defense Act of 1950 ended in 1974. [6] The fact that some publications make reference to actions taken by President Eisenhower (including mock declarations of martial law) [7] does not necessarily mean current presidents have such legal powers. Some provisions of the Defense Production Act ended with the Korean War but could be revived by Congress.

The US Supreme Court placed major restrictions on presidential powers, and it's unclear Eisenhower's proposed sweeping use of martial law would have been permissible: "Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary." [8] [9]

History

Origins and implementation

PEADs and COG planning seems to have originated in the Eisenhower Administration in an attempt to plan for the aftermath of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union and designed to be rapidly implemented to prevent disruption to Government services. Of these orders there were plans for relocating centers for government functions and suspending habeas corpus. [3] They even called for the creation of new government agencies to be chaired by a mixture of both civilian businessmen and cabinet secretaries without any scope of their exact function or lifespan, the only focus being on their activation on the day of a nuclear attack. These new agencies included: The Office of Censorship, National Manpower Agency, and National Food Agency. These agencies were authorized to "requisition or condemn private property or its use," pursuant to act of Congress and/or executive order, and it was thought this would be necessary to rebuild the country and maintain law and order. [10]

1983 draft emergency legislation, the Defense Resources Act (DRA), would have authorized the president to execute certain emergency actions and would have also amended the Defense Production Act. DRA's table of contents included industrial plant seizure (Title V), price controls (Title VII) and censorship (Title X). [11]

Had there been an emergency where the president felt he needed to request authority from Congress to impose limited censorship, DRA provided him statutory legal authority to issue executive orders implementing censorship within federal agencies. Compare Other Plan D Situation. In contrast, the president needs no additional statutory authority to use the Emergency Alert System, as Congress has already authorized these FCC EAS regulations. DRA Title X reads:

"Whenever the President shall deem that the public safety demands it, he may cause to be censored under such rules and regulations as he may from time to time establish, communications by mail, cable radio, television or other means of transmission crossing the borders of the United States. ..."

While no declassified PEAD exists, the DRA legislative draft text on censorship and other Presidential Emergency Actions is now in the public domain. The text of any such censorship PEAD would not be expected to exceed the grant of legislative authority within DRA Title X, based on present understanding. The 1983 draft does not propose suspension of the Constitution. Title II states its adherence to the Fifth Amendment. Congress is free to expand or contract authorities within DRA, subject to constraints within United States Constitution. DRA contains no constitutional suspension clauses per se. [12]

Over time, the circumstances under which PEADs could be executed expanded to include events beyond nuclear warfare. One example is a 1968 FBI Memorandum from the Johnson Administration. The memorandum recommended a "Priority Apprehension Program based on dangerousness[sic] of individuals on SI" referring to the government "Security Index," and noting that the government had "recently amended [its] definition of a dangerous person in new Presidential Emergency Action Document 6, broadening it to include terrorists or persons who would interfere with Government operation and defense effort [sic]". [13] " This Security Index contained the names of individuals whom the government considered threats and should be immediately apprehended and detained to prevent sabotage, espionage, and insurrection and contained 10,000 names. [14] Former Carter Administration official referred to this as "The Enemies Briefcase." [15]

In 1973, the Congressional Church Committee, attempted to uncover various unconstitutional acts by the Executive Branch in the wake of The Watergate Scandal. This committee ended up finding copious amounts of evidence that presidents and their agents had routinely violated the Constitution going back to at least the Roosevelt Administration. The conclusions of the Committee were that the President indeed could: “seize property and commodities, seize control of transport and communications, organize and control the means of production, assign military forces abroad, and restrict travel." They also revealed that States of Emergency had been implemented and remained permanent for decades. The Committee's findings were largely ignored by the public, as the Ford Administration did their best to thwart their activities, and a bill they eventually passed to terminate national emergencies after six months was completely ineffective and eventually forgotten. In 1977 Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Office of Foreign Assets Control which expanded the President's ability to declare National Emergencies and implement unconstitutional policies. [15]

No memoranda that are more recent than 1979 have been found that contain references to PEADs. However, CNN reported in 1991 that the Reagan administration had continued COG planning and revealed plans drafted by then Vice President George H. W. Bush that included a separate line of succession to the presidency conflicting with the Constitution. [16]

Subsequent investigations have revealed that the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have continued COG planning and maintained previous PEADs or developed new ones. The Security Index is also still maintained, now known as "Main Core," and is reported to contain eight million names. [17] Since February 2000 PEADs are retained by FEMA "permanent[ly,]" until "superseded obsolete." [18]

Public awareness

Though there were academic articles and books discussing them since the 1980s, explicit public discussion about PEADS in the media did not begin until March 2020 when President Donald Trump said: "I have the right to do a lot of things that people don't even know about," during a White House press briefing with Prime Minister Leo Varadkar of Ireland [19] leading to an April 10 op-ed in the New York Times by Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice entitled "Trump Has Emergency Powers We Aren't Allowed to Know About." [15]

This led to several pieces in major news outlets such as CBS News, Politico, and Harper's Weekly, as well as former senior White House officials and Senators going public with what they know of PEADS, such as Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart, Mark Medish, a senior National Security Council director under Clinton, and Joel McCleary, a White House official in the Carter Administration. [20] [21]

Comments from Mr. Trump, suggesting sweeping powers unrestricted by Congress or the courts, conflict with [11] precedent in the historic record. President Ronald Reagan's staff briefed Congress on emergency plans. They explained Reagan might request emergency authorities, such as price controls and seizures of industrial facilities, if needed in an emergency. These were requests, not unilateral commands, and they contained protections for constitutional rights including the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Legislation

On July 22, 2020 a Senate bill, S.4279 or The REIGN Act of 2020, was introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey D-MA that was the first piece of legislation to directly acknowledge PEADs, making reference to 56 documents described as "presidential emergency action documents" in the budget justification materials for the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice submitted to Congress in support of the budget of the President for fiscal year 2018. The bill’s sole purpose was to legislate PEADs. The bill would have forced the President to submit any PEAD that went into effect to congressional scrutiny within 30 days. Active PEADs would have to be mostly declassified within 180 days, and any parts considered too sensitive to declassify would have to be summarized in a public report. Finally, any documents in effect when the legislation passed would also have to be declassified or summarized. The REIGN Act ultimately died in committee. [22]

On September 30, 2021, a bipartisan bill, known as H.R. 5410 or The National Security Reforms and Accountability Act (NSRAA), that borrows most of the language from the REIGN Act relating to PEADs, was introduced to Congress by James P. McGovern, D-MA, chairman of the House Rules Committee, and Rep. Peter Meijer, R-MI, ranking member of the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The bill's stated purpose is "To provide for clarification and limitations with respect to the exercise of national security powers, and for other purposes". [23]

Controversies

A 2020 Harper's article [15] presented a number of controversies. It described efforts by former Senator Gary Hart to obtain plans said to be secretive and obscure. While this may be true of some plans, it was not true of all. Hart had access to briefings in the Congressional Record. These printed briefings had no classification markings and have been in the public domain approximately five decades. [11]

The Constitution contains a Suspension Clause, [24] but it does not suspend the Constitution, the Impeachment Clause, [25] or the Appropriations Clause. [26] "If Congress fails to provide necessary funds, then the grants of power to the President are themselves for naught." If Congress fails to provide or revokes funding for presidential emergency actions, it is unclear how unpaid federal employees or soldiers would carry them out.

"The constitutional processes for resolving such an impasse may well be political; no federal court has ever ordered Congress to appropriate funds for the Executive Branch. ..." [26]

A hypothetical example illustrates the issue of the nonjusticiable political question doctrine (see Constitutional Issues, this article). Article II of the US Constitution says: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. ..." However, the Army and Navy require various items, such as transportation and fuel, to carry out presidential orders. If the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to approve money for the Army and Navy, the president might give emergency action orders to the military they are unable to execute. [26] [27]

Indeed, the Suspension Clause deals specifically with suppression of rebellion and public safety. But suspending the writ of habeas and ordering the armed forces to suppress rebellion do not by themselves keep the peace. The Defense Resources Act or similar might address seizure of transportation, but the DRA also contemplates compensation to owners when the federal government commandeers private property. This creates a potential deadlock where neither Congress nor the president can unilaterally act and where courts have never stepped in to resolve such a specific impasse. [26] [24]

"While the federal government has a constitutional right to 'take' private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property, valued at the time of the takings." [28] In this light, due process would appear to require some form of hearing or other just process before the president could seize transportation to suppress rebellion, as well as some form of compensation, presumably paid by Congress. [28]

"The [Suspension] Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ [of habeas], but most agree that only Congress can do it." [24]

Constitutional Issues

The Brennan Center for Justice declared that "we do not know what PEADs contain today" but that in the past, they have been known to include suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. [29] [30]

Professor Amanda L. Tyler, writing in the Stanford Law Review in 2006, explained some of the many constitutional concerns. "An argument that suspension is a nonjusticiable political question would lead to the result that suspension is a matter on which the Constitution imposes such restraints, but that many, if not all, of those restraints are not subject to judicial enforcement." [27]

Tyler underscores possible threats to liberty that may arise from emergency actions: "Where the Executive detains someone without affording that party an impartial forum to test the lawfulness of the detention, this act unquestionably constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process ." [27]

Some of the key Supreme Court cases imposing limits on presidential emergency actions include Ex parte Milligan (restricting martial law) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. In the Youngstown case, the Supreme Court held: "The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress." It appears Title V of the draft Defense Resources Act was intended to convey such statutory authority if ever needed.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the Constitution of the United States establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Two of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the executive branch

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the President of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the President, and establishes the President's powers and responsibilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of South Korea</span> Head of state and government of South Korea

The president of the Republic of Korea, also known as the president of Korea, is both the head of state and head of government of the Republic of Korea. The president is elected by citizens of the Republic of Korea and pledges to execute the duties of their office, chief among others "to defend the State, pursue peaceful unification of the homeland." The president leads the State Council, is the chief of the executive branch of the national government and the commander-in-chief of the Republic of Korea Armed Forces.

<i>Ex parte Merryman</i> United States legal case

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), was a controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline to enforce judicial decisions when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the common government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, comprising 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district of Washington, D.C., where the majority of the federal government is based.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War Powers Resolution</span> 1973 U.S. federal law (50 U.S.C. 1541-48)

The War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive order</span> Federal administrative instruction issued by the president of the United States

In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span>

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), also commonly referred to as the Steel Seizure Case or the Youngstown Steel case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the president of the United States to seize private property. The case served as a check on the most far-reaching claims of executive power at the time and signaled the Court's increased willingness to intervene in political questions.

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.

The Constitution of the Argentine Nation is the basic governing document of Argentina, and the primary source of existing law in Argentina. Its first version was written in 1853 by a constitutional assembly which gathered in Santa Fe; the doctrinal basis was taken in part from the United States Constitution. It was then reformed in 1860, 1866, 1898, 1949, 1957, and the current version is the reformed text of 1994. It's the seventh oldest national constitution currently in effect being ratified on May 1, 1853.

<i>Federalist No. 70</i> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 70, titled "The Executive Department Further Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton arguing for a single, robust executive provided for in the United States Constitution. It was originally published on March 15, 1788, in The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius as part of The Federalist Papers and as the fourth in Hamilton's series of eleven essays discussing executive power.

In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Emergencies Act</span> 1976 U.S.legislation

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. The case underscored the essential role of habeas corpus as a safeguard against government overreach, ensuring that individuals cannot be detained indefinitely without the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Powers of the United States Congress</span>

Powers of the United States Congress are implemented by the United States Constitution, defined by rulings of the Supreme Court, and by its own efforts and by other factors such as history and custom. It is the chief legislative body of the United States. Some powers are explicitly defined by the Constitution and are called enumerated powers; others have been assumed to exist and are called implied powers.

Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 majority that restrictions upon travel to Cuba established as part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations in 1963 did not violate the freedom to travel protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Defense Resources Act (DRA) was draft emergency legislation of the United States Government. A 1983 submission to Congress confirmed the existence of the plan. The present and prior status of the DRA proposal is not immediately certain.

References

  1. ↑ FEMA MANUAL,111
  2. ↑ "Presidential Emergency Action Documents | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  3. 1 2 Thronson 2013, p. 763.
  4. 1 2 Goitein, Elizabeth (January–February 2019). "The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers". The Atlantic . Retrieved 31 October 2020.
  5. ↑ "Rewriting the limits of presidential powers". CBS News . 16 August 2020.
  6. ↑ Webster, Elisabeth W. (November 19, 2021). "National Emergency Powers". CRS Reports. Retrieved November 17, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ↑ "The President's News Conference | The American Presidency Project". www.presidency.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 2024-11-17.
  8. ↑ "Ex parte Milligan", Wikipedia, 2023-12-27, retrieved 2024-11-17
  9. ↑ "Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-11-17.
  10. ↑ Conaty 2010, p. 673.
  11. 1 2 3 Stabilization, United States Congress House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic (1983). Briefing on the Defense Production Act of 1950: Briefing Before the Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, March 2, 1983. U.S. Government Printing Office.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ↑ "Article One of the United States Constitution", Wikipedia, 2024-09-23, retrieved 2024-10-31
  13. ↑ Hobson v. Brennan, 646 F. Supp. 884, 896 (D.D.C. 1986)
  14. ↑ Thronson 2013, p. 765.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Cockburn, Andrew (November 2020). "The Enemies Briefcase". Harper's Magazine . Retrieved 31 October 2020.
  16. ↑ Thronson 2013, p. 767.
  17. ↑ Thronson 2013, p. 768.
  18. ↑ FEMA MANUAL, 111
  19. ↑ www.whitehouse.gov: Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Varadkar of Ireland Before Bilateral Meeting
  20. ↑ Goitein, Elizabeth; Boyle, Andrew (10 April 2020). "Trump Has Emergency Powers We Aren't Allowed to Know About". New York Times . Retrieved 31 October 2020.
  21. ↑ Wirth, Timothy; Mccleary, Joel; Medish, Mark; Hart, Gary (9 June 2020). "How Trump Could Use Political Chaos to Upset the Election". Politico . Retrieved 31 October 2020.
  22. ↑ "S.4279 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): REIGN Act of 2020". 22 July 2020.
  23. ↑ "Text - H.R.5410 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): National Security Reforms and Accountability Act". 30 September 2021.
  24. 1 2 3 "Interpretation: The Suspension Clause | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  25. ↑ "Interpretation: Article II, Section 4 | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  26. 1 2 3 4 "Interpretation: Appropriations Clause | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  27. 1 2 3 Tyler, Amanda L. (2006). "Is Suspension a Political Question" (PDF). Stanford Law Review. 59 (2): 333.
  28. 1 2 "Fifth Amendment". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-11-17.
  29. ↑ "Presidential Emergency Action Documents | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2024-11-13.
  30. ↑ Rateshtari, Roya (2020-12-10). "Writ of Habeas Corpus | U.S. Marshals Service". www.usmarshals.gov. Retrieved 2024-11-13.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.