~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
For your reading pleasure !!
Section 201, in part:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
This is potentially extremely dangerous!
I just scanned through this document. A couple of things stood out.
1) extensive use of the word shall -- shall is a term used in law to mean compelled with the possibility of punishment. EOs are not law except within the Executive branch, over which the President has broad authority.
2) continuity of government has been moved from the DOD to Homeland security.
3) implied but explicitly omitted from the document is the declaration that Congress is no longer relevant. Why? Because secretaries of the various departments now have the authority to loan and subsidize for critical national defense needs.
4) also, if you want to use anything that provides transportation you will have to check with the bureaucracy first.
Thanks for that briefing on this, JB! The word 'shall' means 'damn well better' and thank you for pointing that out. I have found it is a word that people often think is synonymous with 'may.'
OK, every one....time to calm down a bit, Go to the government web site and look for Executive Order 12919 signed by Slick Willy on June 3, 1994.
I pulled it down onto Acrobat Reader but do not know how to attach it here,,,, BUT, it reads very similar to the one that O signed on Friday.
It allows the government to operate outside of the regulations in times of crises and has to be reviewed & updated periodically. It addresses issues such as procurement - in an emergency do you want the government to do cost benefit analyses to buy equipment to respond to an emergency or would you rather they just hurry and buy what is needed to address the emergency,,, no brainer.
This is what happens when the government gets too big,, We the People do not trust that they are proceeding in our best interests no matter what they do.
Doug, I can't, at this point, dispute what you say. However, assuming that this is simply an update of EO 12919, it means that EO 12919 is also highly suspect and (in my simple way of thinking) probably unconstitutional in a number of ways. For instance, I can find nowhere in the Constitution that provides for the Executive to ignore the Legislature or Judiciary in a time of emergency or crisis. I also cannot find anywhere in the Constitution authority conferred on the Executive to ignore the independent republics (states) that joined together to form the federal government.
The fact that the people (you and me) were asleep when Clinton was president explains why there was no concern about this back then.
Hey JB, my point is,,, nothing has really changed,, this policy has been around for at least 18 years (that is where I stopped looking). It allows the government to do things out of the normal during a crisis. It was also policy when GW was in office, and it will probably be a policy when O gets his pink slip and the 'newbie' starts reviewing all EO's.
LINK to E.O. 12919
Doug, I understand your point and that this is not particularly new in the scheme of things. It may even go all the way back to Reagan when the Continuity of Government program started as a way of preserving national leadership in the event of nuclear war. But, even as good a reason as that is, it does not follow the principles embodied in the Constitution.
Assuming this EO is an update of EO12919, they both seem to be unconstitutional. I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution that it provides for the Executive to assume all powers of the government even temporarily. I also have not found the permission for one branch of government to ignore the other two, even temporarily. Emergency conditions or not, the Constitution requires three branches of government.
Further EO12919 should have been challenged when it was written because it was (probably) unconstitutional then. But, we were asleep at the time.
JB, here is my point, with all respect - all over the blogosphere today I am seeing people ready to start grabbing guns and hitting the streets. Well the argument will be,,, why is everyone so upset about an Executive policy that has been around for 20 years- there is no rational argument, we do not need to come off as irrational. Rational truthful arguments win the day - people in the streets screaming conspiracy theory are just that,,,people in the streets screaming.
Join Fundamental Refounding
Welcome toFundamental Refounding
Sign Upor Sign In
Please view our mission, policy, and legal disclaimer to learn about us by visiting the main menu. Thank you.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!
Let your voice be counted!
© 2017 Fundamental Refounding.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.