The problems with some directives are they remove the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches.  We have these built into our republican form of government to prevent despotism.  Federal government has an atrocious record of acting slowly because of the handicaps afforded by bureaucracy.  However, should a unilateral entity be allowed to go unchecked for 6 months, how quickly do you think that individual could do, possibly irreversable, damage?

The Presidential Directive might be in response to critical issues that require leadership not a committee [Congress & Judicial].

I believe the Clinton White House stretched those limits like a Size 10 spandex over someone morbidly obese.

My apologies for not clarifying.

I'm wondering if that is something that should be added.  It seems that the president has been given way too much power to act unilaterally by using the Presidential Directive magic wand.

"Would you vote for a measure that would require congress to vote on and approve Presidential Directives?"

Presidential Directives give the president the authority to act unliaterally (without checks and balances in many cases).  Some of the content of some Presidential Directives is classified.  One such Presidential Directive is NSPD51, which basically allows for "Continuity of Constitutional Government".  The provisions of the directive are basically martial law and any measure put into action under this directive cannot be reviewed by the Congress for at least 6 months after declared.  This comes to us in conjunction with the 2006 Military Commissions Act which contains a provision to repeal Posse Commitatus, which prohibits the use of armed uniformed services to police on American soil.