Should the U.S. president suspend the constitution?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hell no. That's some scary ass shit.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Yes, such measures are an unfortunate necessity in case of an extreme scenario, such as civil war or nuclear war. They will most likely never be implemented even in the event of a crisis, but they should be there to protect the state from complete catastrophe.

If get to the point of a nuclear war then there’s going to be a lot significantly more pressing issues for the government (or what’s left of it) to worry about suspending the constitution, not that there’d be too many people left alive to care anymore.

[FutureAmerica]

Lincoln did it. He did it to silence War critics.

[Dominioan]

By the time that happens? Its too late anyway.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Lincoln did it. He did it to silence War critics.

No. He suspended habeas corpus, not the constitution.

[Cisairse]

Hell no. That's some scary ass shit.

I agree.

[The Marlborough]

I stumbled upon this Harper's letter today and it really spooked me. I'll quote one of the juicy parts, but there's much more:

At some point in the first term, however, experts surmise that an even more secret briefing occurs, one that has never been publicly acknowledged. In it, the new president learns how to blow up the Constitution.

The session introduces “presidential emergency action documents,” or PEADs, orders that authorize a broad range of mortal assaults on our civil liberties. In the words of a rare declassified official description, the documents outline how to “implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations”—by imposing martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing control of the internet, imposing censorship, and incarcerating so-called subversives, among other repressive measures. “We know about the nuclear briefcase that carries the launch codes,” Joel McCleary, a White House official in the Carter Administration, told me. “But over at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department there’s a list of all the so-called enemies of the state who would be rounded up in an emergency. I’ve heard it called the ‘enemies briefcase.’ ”

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/11/the-enemies-briefcase-secret-powers-of-the-presidency/

Emphasis mine. Now, the CoG stuff was relatively well-known by the public; a decent amount of it was declassified a few years ago. But the existence of the PEADs was not previously known to the public.
The article goes into a lot of detail about supra-legislative authorities that the United States president has, and where those authorities come from, but I'd like to focus specifically on the passage quoted above.

Do you think (and why do you think) that the U.S. government should actively maintain plans to dissolve the Constitution and suspend civil rights in the country? If so, under what circumstances should these plans be put into effect?

Personally I feel that they should not do this, because civil rights are fundamentally important things which the populace shouldn't have stripped from them.

Suspending habeas corpus, restricting freedom of the press, arresting dissidents, etc has already been done by one US president in an extreme situation in the past so it's not like it's anything new.

[Page]

I stumbled upon this Harper's letter today and it really spooked me. I'll quote one of the juicy parts, but there's much more:

At some point in the first term, however, experts surmise that an even more secret briefing occurs, one that has never been publicly acknowledged. In it, the new president learns how to blow up the Constitution.

The session introduces “presidential emergency action documents,” or PEADs, orders that authorize a broad range of mortal assaults on our civil liberties. In the words of a rare declassified official description, the documents outline how to “implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations”—by imposing martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing control of the internet, imposing censorship, and incarcerating so-called subversives, among other repressive measures. “We know about the nuclear briefcase that carries the launch codes,” Joel McCleary, a White House official in the Carter Administration, told me. “But over at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department there’s a list of all the so-called enemies of the state who would be rounded up in an emergency. I’ve heard it called the ‘enemies briefcase.’ ”

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/11/the-enemies-briefcase-secret-powers-of-the-presidency/

Emphasis mine. Now, the CoG stuff was relatively well-known by the public; a decent amount of it was declassified a few years ago. But the existence of the PEADs was not previously known to the public.
The article goes into a lot of detail about supra-legislative authorities that the United States president has, and where those authorities come from, but I'd like to focus specifically on the passage quoted above.

Do you think (and why do you think) that the U.S. government should actively maintain plans to dissolve the Constitution and suspend civil rights in the country? If so, under what circumstances should these plans be put into effect?

Personally I feel that they should not do this, because civil rights are fundamentally important things which the populace shouldn't have stripped from them.

Suspending habeas corpus, restricting freedom of the press, arresting dissidents, etc has already been done by one US president in an extreme situation in the past so it's not like it's anything new.

These things have happened several times. Lincoln in the Civil War, Wilson in WW1, FDR in WW2.

[Cisairse]

I stumbled upon this Harper's letter today and it really spooked me. I'll quote one of the juicy parts, but there's much more:

At some point in the first term, however, experts surmise that an even more secret briefing occurs, one that has never been publicly acknowledged. In it, the new president learns how to blow up the Constitution.

The session introduces “presidential emergency action documents,” or PEADs, orders that authorize a broad range of mortal assaults on our civil liberties. In the words of a rare declassified official description, the documents outline how to “implement extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations”—by imposing martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing control of the internet, imposing censorship, and incarcerating so-called subversives, among other repressive measures. “We know about the nuclear briefcase that carries the launch codes,” Joel McCleary, a White House official in the Carter Administration, told me. “But over at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department there’s a list of all the so-called enemies of the state who would be rounded up in an emergency. I’ve heard it called the ‘enemies briefcase.’ ”

https://harpers.org/archive/2020/11/the-enemies-briefcase-secret-powers-of-the-presidency/

Emphasis mine. Now, the CoG stuff was relatively well-known by the public; a decent amount of it was declassified a few years ago. But the existence of the PEADs was not previously known to the public.
The article goes into a lot of detail about supra-legislative authorities that the United States president has, and where those authorities come from, but I'd like to focus specifically on the passage quoted above.

Do you think (and why do you think) that the U.S. government should actively maintain plans to dissolve the Constitution and suspend civil rights in the country? If so, under what circumstances should these plans be put into effect?

Personally I feel that they should not do this, because civil rights are fundamentally important things which the populace shouldn't have stripped from them.

Suspending habeas corpus, restricting freedom of the press, arresting dissidents, etc has already been done by one US president in an extreme situation in the past so it's not like it's anything new.

Disestablishing the separation of powers and summarily imprisoning a pre-determined list of "enemies of the state" has never happened before in the history of the U.S.

[Ethel mermania]

In the event of a civil war, it makes sense.

So until we go to war with California, it should not be needed.

[The Marlborough]

Suspending habeas corpus, restricting freedom of the press, arresting dissidents, etc has already been done by one US president in an extreme situation in the past so it's not like it's anything new.

Disestablishing the separation of powers and summarily imprisoning a pre-determined list of "enemies of the state" has never happened before in the history of the U.S.

No, but that's because America had yet to experience anything like the Cold War before. Had Lincoln or Wilson prepared rigorously for war they probably would have drawn up lists. Predetermined lists is not a massive leap from previously established precedents of severely suspending civil liberties.

[The Marlborough]

Suspending habeas corpus, restricting freedom of the press, arresting dissidents, etc has already been done by one US president in an extreme situation in the past so it's not like it's anything new.

These things have happened several times. Lincoln in the Civil War, Wilson in WW1, FDR in WW2.

Tbf civil liberties weren't as restricted in WWII compared to the ACW and WWI.

[Cetacea]

I’m confused I thought that Americans got their guns so they could defend the Constitution?

[Kowani]

I’m confused I thought that Americans got their guns so they could defend the Constitution?

laughs in gun industry

[The Alma Mater]

I’m confused I thought that Americans got their guns so they could defend the Constitution?

True,but Republicans have made it clear they do not intend to use their guns for that purpose.
Hence why liberals are now also stockpiling.
The NRA is very happy.

[Cisairse]

I’m confused I thought that Americans got their guns so they could defend the Constitution?

Guns are virtually useless against a fully activated surveillance state.

[Albrenia]

I’m confused I thought that Americans got their guns so they could defend the Constitution?

Guns are virtually useless against a fully activated surveillance state.

I don't think they're the great equaliser that they were in the past anymore. I don't think many people want to acknowledge that though, and still want to pretend having a well-stocked bunch of firearms will scare the government out of 'taking control'.

[Purpelia]

I read PEAD as PEDA

[Senkaku]

I think there's a certain need for emergency planning, given that the thermonuclear sword of Damocles really could fall at any moment, but I think the legislative branch needs to step up and clarify that implementation of such orders should only be permissible in the event of nuclear war, and perhaps in the event of genuine civil war (not simply riots or some bombings or what have you) or a natural disaster of the magnitude of Chicxulub or Yellowstone-- only situations where significant portions of our population have been destroyed and where only unilateral martial direction can provide any sort of order.

[Innovationist Eurasia]

If the Constitution is going to be suspended I don't think it'll be a president doing it.

[Cisairse]

If the Constitution is going to be suspended I don't think it'll be a president doing it.

How do you figure?

[San Lumen]

I think there's a certain need for emergency planning, given that the thermonuclear sword of Damocles really could fall at any moment, but I think the legislative branch needs to step up and clarify that implementation of such orders should only be permissible in the event of nuclear war, and perhaps in the event of genuine civil war (not simply riots or some bombings or what have you) or a natural disaster of the magnitude of Chicxulub or Yellowstone-- only situations where significant portions of our population have been destroyed and where only unilateral martial direction can provide any sort of order.

I think that Is a very good idea.

[Esternial]

I think such procedures should exist, but for obvious reasons include necessary checks and balances to avoid them being abused.

There are some hospitals that have a "break glass" principle which permit viewing of confidential patient records in case of emergencies. Such procedures are expected to be properly documented/established and coupled with proper auditing and review - with the necessary consequences for any abuse.