This is a horrifically bad idea.

What happens when we get an even more self serving government that decides to declare a "cybersecurity emergency" so that they can cut off dissent from blogs, email, etc.? A conservative government could take a few major liberal cities offline a couple of days before an election to influence the outcome. A grass roots effort to plan a pro-life protest could be quashed when a liberal government kills their web sites and email servers while they are running a fund raiser. "So sorry, evil terrorist hackers were running a bot net in your area so we had to take you offline for two days." Even worse, what happens if we the people are one day considered the “emergency”.

Look at the 2009 Iranian election protests as an example. Protesters and citizen journalists arranged meetings, shared videos and photographs and exchanged first aid information over Twitter, TOR, and more. The Iranian government did their best to isolate Iran from the rest of the world by blocking web sites, disrupting cell phones and even jamming a BBC satellite. In spite of this, tech savvy students managed to get their message out via the internet. If Iran had successfully created a complete media and communications blackout, they probably would have been much more brutal in silencing the protests. No nation should give it's government the power to easily cut them off from the rest of the world.

The internet is usually where news breaks first, and is the likeliest place for a whistle-blower or dissident to complain about the government behaving badly. Why on earth would anyone willingly give the government the power to block that valuable communications outlet?

Here are some constitutional amendments in the bill of rights that would likely be violated by such a bill:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The internet is where people exercise their free speech. Politically active groups peaceably assemble in cyberspace more often than in the real world. The constitution doesn't grant the government the right to sever our communications with each other and the rest of the world. This can't be allowed to happen.

I'd have to say that violates some of our rights, but in the end they'll find a loop hole anyways. I assume it would only be a bad thing if they violated our privacy, which I'm sure they already do without us noticing. So either way, we're happy and unknowing. Proof of this is all the pictures of houses on Google Earth. You'd figure some people would notice them, but it seems like no one does.
Don't be a victim of the man! :P

Peace!

What exactaly would he control? How would he control it? Could this 'control' be hacked?

I think it is a very very BAD idea.

If he was taking control of internet access in the US it would be one thing... if he actually attempted to take control of the entire intenet many countries would actually consider that an act of war!