It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Amends Executive Order No. 12,866

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:58 PM
While Americans watch developments on the world stage, President Bush has simultaneously, and quietly, attended to domestic business by issuing a sweeping amendment to Executive Order No. 12,866, effectively seizing unprecedented control over the executive branch of government.

The amendments, released by the Whitehouse in mid-January, significantly alter the previous federal agency rulemaking process and structure. Changes include, making it a requirement that all federal agency rules be cleared by the Whitehouse in advance of publication, installing presidential appointees as intra-agency heads, and forcing certain defined "market" considerations as paramount to any administrative agency's enabling mission.
On January 18, President Bush issued amendments to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, which further centralize regulatory power in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and shift it away from the federal agencies given this power by legislative enactments.

Among the changes to the E.O.:

  • It shifts the criterion for promulgating regulations from the identification of a problem like public health or environmental protection to the identification of "…the specific market failure (such as externalities, market power, lack of information)…that warrant new agency action."

  • It requires guidance documents to go through the same OMB review process as proposed regulations before agencies can issue them.

  • It also requires "significant" guidance documents (those that are estimated to have at least a $100 million effect on the economy, among other criteria) to go through the same OMB review process as "significant" regulations.

  • It makes the agencies' Regulatory Policy Officer a presidential appointment and gives that person the approval authority for any commencement or inclusion of any rulemaking in the Regulatory Plan unless specifically authorized by the agency head.

  • It requires each agency to estimate the "combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations planned for that calendar year to assist with the identification of priorities," which will be overseen by the Regulatory Policy Officer.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here is the text of the Executive Order.

I'm still analyzing the full potential impact of all this. But my first impression is that President Bush has effectively seized control of federal agencies in manner unprecedented in US history.

What do you think?

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Executive Order 12866

[edit on 27-1-2007 by loam]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:22 PM
It won't stand... mark my word, Bush might not get impeached but by 2008 his feathers are going to get clipped big time... we have consistantly gone through stages where one branch has asserted priority over the others only to have it reigned in...example: Lincoln asserted unprecedented powers only to have the next congress impeach his successor for asserting the same rights. Nixon is another more recent example. With Iraq blowing up in his face this is a last gasp grab for power and if he tried to provoke or fabricate an attack from Iran he is toast.

Bush has failed and it is only a matter of time before he becomes lamest duck president we have ever had... all these president wannabe's, if they are serious about their run for office are going to start asserting their power to their base and eventually back Bush into a corner.

That is not to say that his arrogant ignorance is going to provoke a constituitional crisis... it will and by the end of the year we will know the outlines of it... the only question will be how to deal with it... he is still going to be the biggest loser.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:57 PM

Seized control indeed.

Another Bushkreig.


posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:31 AM
It's basically an exercise of the Unitary Executive Theory. The constitution clearly states that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...". As such some interpret this to mean (in conjunction with the "Take Care Clause") that the Presided has total control of the executive branch because in a nutshell, he is the executive!

As far as history goes it is not "new", hence not "unprecedented". The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue but there have been several indirect rulings from past related topics. As such it is a an open ended legal debate. I don't believe by current laws Bush has done anything illegal because this deals with oversight and control of the executive branch. It therefore cannot be regulated and controlled by the congress or the courts. As long as the Presidents "faithfully executes" the laws how that comes to be is irrelevant. Congress cannot rule on it for the same reason the President cannot choose who sits in what congressional committee, separation of powers and therefore domain.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:21 AM
I don't know if we have any movie buffs in here, but I'm reminded of another executive order... Order 66, which ominously enough, are the last two numbers of this very executive order.

I don't like to believe in coincidence, but I don't know what else to make of this. Anyone else see anything strange about this, in-text or otherwise, that no one here's pointed out yet.


posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:37 AM
This is what happens when insanity meets arrogance. You've got a handful of disgruntled men in their 70's with stone-faces smoking pipes and drinking port; telling those "in power" that fall victim to their "power" and down the suppression goes to the chain of command of the world.

Yuck. I wonder what people will say when Billary doesn't change anything, but proceeds with war against Iran. The elites are so stupid; I could have done it better drunk.

The elites failed by not implementing Internet 2 immediately after 911. The videos are made; it's viral. You could wipe out ATS and all it's users... and that's stepping on 4 ants out of an ant colony.

Alex Jones... his videos on youtube and google... they aren't going away.

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by grover
With Iraq blowing up in his face this is a last gasp grab for power and if he tried to provoke or fabricate an attack from Iran he is toast.

Is that unbridled optimism, Grover? Based on the goverment's track record thus far, I would say that the two party puppet system more apt to blow smoke rather than impeding the war economy or Bush. The trend is still towards war as a solution in order to avoid a depression, and I have seen very few corporate policies that reflect different.

I highly respect Paul Craig Roberts' opinion in regards to the war economy and his warning that Bush will attack on Iran is realistic.

Bush Is About to Attack Iran: Why Can't Americans See it? Paul Craig Roberts

The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq. This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.

In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.

Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasted an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I hope your right Grover, but I just don't see it happening based on past performances and knowing this administration still has a few aces up its sleeve, where as Executive Order No. 12,866 is yet another notch in the old gunbelt.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:06 AM
What the Hell?

(From loam's link to the text of the document)

"Sec. 10. Preservation of Agency Authority. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority vested by law in an agency or the head thereof, including the authority of the Attorney General relating to litigation."

Isn't the whole order explicitly designed to impact the authority of the agencies in question?

My head hurts.

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:01 AM
What has changed is the political climate here in America. The corporate leaders and the holdfasts who control this administration may not see it, and the media may not see it but after Iraq, if Bush minor tries to trump up reasons for another war, the people simply will not stand for it, and perhaps the military as well. Besides all that...we just don't have the resources for another war... Iraq has proved that. When Cheney was the Sec. of Defense, we began moving away from stockpiling supplies for the military, partly in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union and began point-of-purchase buying from the companies that supply the military, and of course to save on storage and the tying up of monies in unsold stock, they do the same. Consequently we went into Iraq without enough supplies, body armor is a prime example. Also Iran is not a beaten down regime like Saddam's was after the first gulf war and twelve years of crippling sanctions... It is a large, unified, populous and prosperous state with a healthy military... if we attack, it will be a bloodbath, the military has got to know this even if Bush doesn't and Cheney doesn't want to hear it. We could lose thousands in the first weeks.

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:59 PM
Looks like Bush just legalized his dictatorship.

And these guys point fingers at Chavez?


[edit on 28-1-2007 by soficrow]

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by soficrow
Looks like Bush just legalized his dictatorship.
And these guys point fingers at Chavez?

I would call that misdirected anger Sofi, where people blame others before acknowledging the problem is within themselves or their backyard.

So maybe we should treat the US government as a raging alcoholic, crack smoking sycophant and send it to the Betty Ford clinic for a labotomy

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:51 AM
Who's really pulling these strings? Bush is not intelligent enough to do this on his own. Will future presidents willingly divest themselves of such power? How does a country continue to seemingly promote democracy abroad while whittling away at democratic values at home? Who are they kidding?

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:48 PM
Of course, bush minor's real constituency, the business class and large corporations love this. He can arrange to have occupational safety and environmental regulations gutted without having to deal with a Democratic congress. You didn't think he did it for the American people did you?

[edit on 30-1-2007 by grover]

new topics

top topics


log in