<link>

Admit it, despite the improbability of some group of assassins "cutting the head off of our snake," the Constitution has enough process layed out for our government to continue. We don't need more secretive Executive Directives to try and derail the process, syphoning power into one area, putting all our eggs into one basket.

The link I provided is to a Rosenbaum article that is similarly scary. For some odd reason, with the unjustified "infallibility" so many are willing to ascribe to our executive leadership, they still draft some ludicrously ambiguous directives. But the ambiguity is intentional, they WANT to be able to read between the lines they draw, and find pockets of power to abuse. I'm sure that the same is true of the Succession Directive. And that's why I don't like it.

I wish we were more confident in the society we create around ourselves, that the laws we agree upon are enough that the citizens of this country can get by even if we lose the people behind the nameplates' of officials.

The real anarchy will only occur when we are unsure of who to listen to - and some yet to be seen, secret executive directive would be just that. The mere fact that this is alleged, allows whoever is still standing after this hypothetical mulitple-assassination to write up their own "directive" and pass it off as previously drafted and legal. How could anyone prove otherwise?