state of emergency

2012 Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
September 11, 2012


Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2012. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

September 11, 2012.

Is the State of Emergency Superseding the US Constitution? by Peter Dale Scott


Is the State of Emergency Superseding the US Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society by Peter Dale Scott

In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly North had been handling plans for an emergency response to a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution at the president’s determination.

As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times without journalistic comment or follow-up:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

Representative Wolf on COG, the State of Emergency and Congress’ Failure to Comply With the Law

See here for hyperlinks:

In response to the call to action outlined in the article “To All Readers: Help Force Congress To Observe the Law on National Emergencies!!!” by Prof. Peter Dale Scott and former Rep. Dan Hamburg (D-CA), I emailed and faxed Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA), and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA). In my letter I noted that former President Bush declared a “State of Emergency” on September 14, 2001 and continued it every year since then, and I asked why Congress has not yet met to “consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated", as Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act requires them to do, every six months following such a declaration. I also asked if Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary are “operating according to the Constitution, or according to the rules of Continuity of Government”, as the Continuity of Government procedures enacted on 9/11 have never been formally rescinded.

Swine Flu Links Roundup -

And 2 not included:
DHS Sets Guidelines For Possible Swine Flu Quarantines

Homeland Security preps flu quarantine guidelines [commentary on CBS-obtained memo and additional info]

hyperlinks here:
Last updated: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:45:10 GMT

Investigation into Whether America is Still a Constitutional Government

Check out this new website.

An all-in-one-place resource on Continuity of Government, State of Emergency, and related issues for congress people, reporters, and other interested people.

Larisa Alexandrovna: Declassified DOJ memo suggests 9/11 "state of emergency" never lifted

Larisa Alexandrovna reports on a declassified DOJ memo from 2001 at HuffPo.

According to the ACLU, "A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations." The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency."