As I understand it, the US was shaped and formed as a counterpart to the rule of King George III (the third) in Britain who decided nearly everything in Britain in the 1770's. And that's why the founding fathers decided to make a senate, a house, a president, and a Supreme Court, which all should reign together, in a system of check and balances.
It was never intended to be that way that the President could or even should get all the power to reign --- no matter what.
As for Hitler's raise to power -- this is somewhat similar to it, but the difference is that Hitler had his SA-goons stirring up trouble, which Hitler then promised to go away. This he did. He also, after becoming Reichskansler in 1933, gradually made it so that He had all the power...
As I understand it, Bush now has the ability to call for martial law in crises, disasters and catastrophies, for instance in cases like
Hurricane Katrina. Didn't Eisenhower do the same thing in the 1950's when he applied? the National Guard in Alabama? Or was it the State Governor that called for Martial Law??
The point that troubles me, though, is that the President can interpret almost any unrest and unsatisfaction with the Pres. or the state --- as a national disaster... as the terms used to describe this are very broad indeed...
And that's (very) frighthening...