Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functio

Originally posted by marg6043
Interesting that this can be taken into any type of content depending the meaning.

The president is giving himself powers supposedly under the Constitution to declare any type of even that he deems of importance an emergency and control communications accordingly, leaving the nation and the rest of the American people without news while the government can hide their truth intentions.

Where does it say that in the E.O.? Did you even read it? Seriously - post the specific passage.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by paxnatus

 

Search is our friend:

Here's A THREAD from back in 2003, discussing EOs.

All it takes is for the current President to issue a state of emergency, and all of the EO's go into effect, and FEMA gets to run the show. You have every right to be paranoid.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

And the list goes on....

It sounds like you don't know what an Executive Order is or how the constitution works.

1. the Legislative Branch enacts laws

2. the Executive Branch establishes regulations (Executive Orders) to put those laws into effect

Executive Orders are issued every week of the year and cover everything from procedures for civil service arbitration to certifying sanctions against proscribed trade articles. Because the president is C-in-C of the armed forces, a large number of E.O.s - since the time of JAMES MADISON - have had to do with security issues.

reply to post by -W1LL


I said never mind .

What does the E.O. actually do?

It renames a committee that already exists!

Just read it, the whole text is the right there. It:

(1) revokes a Reagan-era Executive Order that establishes a committee to advise the president on emergency communications systems (many of the agencies assigned to that committee haven't existed for several years)

(2) establishes a new committee in its place that has identical responsibilities but consists of agencies that exist

That's it! It renames a committee that already exists!

It doesn't open FEMA camps, create special authority to takeover TV stations, authorize the President to place the mark of the beast on people. This is an example of government waste and systems-originated bureaucracy, not a conspiracy. The whole f*@$ing thing is written in the English-language - it's no mystery. If you have low reading comprehension skills ask a friend who reads better than you to look at it - don't just assume there's a conspiracy.

I swear, more conspiracy theories start on the basis of someone who got a 280 on their verbal SAT reading something that they don't quite understand.

reply to post by Castillo


I beg to differ:

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

The President can make a law, by himself, in thirty days.

Shortly after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, directing the interment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, many of whom were U.S. citizens.

That's a fact from the history books that violated the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens. Racial Profiling, anyone?

In reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush issued this executive order combining over 40 federal law enforcement agencies and creating the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

Ah, the infamous DHS, with powers galore! Where in the constitution does it allow for this? It doesn't. The powers of the DHS stem solely from an EO issued by a president. A new government agency created by a single preisdent.

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

The War Powers Act remained in effect and unchanged until 1933 when a freshly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt found America in the panic stage of the Great Depression. The first thing FDR did was to convene a special session of Congress where he introduced a bill amending the War Powers Act to remove the clause excluding American citizens from being bound by its effects. This would allow the President to declare "national emergencies" and unilaterally intact laws to deal with them. This massive amendment was approved by both houses of Congress in less than 40 minutes without debate. Hours later, FDR officially declared the depression a "national emergency" and stared issuing a string of executive orders that effectively created and implemented his famed "New Deal" policy. While some of FDR's actions were, perhaps, constitutionally questionable, history now acknowledges them as having helped to avert the people's growing panic and starting our economy on its way to recovery.

SOURCE.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by Castillo

 

I beg to differ:

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

The President can make a law, by himself, in thirty days.

You've got to learn the difference between statutory law and administrative law.

Do that and maybe we'll start drilling down into the rest of the vortex of insanity from that point, but you need to get that basic understanding under your belt first. Sorry, that's just a must.

reply to post by Castillo

It doesn't open FEMA camps, create special authority to takeover TV stations,

Correct. Those functions are provided by already existing EOs.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 ( 27 F.R. 1519 ) allows the government to seize and control the communication media. It establishes the Telecommunications Management Agency that provides for the "takeover" of ALL communications media in the United States. This includes broadcast and cable television, ALL radio stations, ALL satelite earth stations and satelites and ALL telephone companies and telephone systems in the United States.

Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An"emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA had spent only about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies while the bulk of their funding had been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to ensure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

Hmm, let's see If I can comprehend this:

Administrative law focuses on the exercise of government authority by the executive branch and its agencies. These agencies are created by Congress through "enabling legislation," and are authorized to promulgate regulations which have the same force as statutory law.

Statutory Law is when laws are passed by the government that have been accepted by our society.

So, it appears an EO is an administrative law, with the full force of a statutory law, but that EOs can be enacted by the president that create new agencies, such as FEMA, and carefully by-pass the constitution in "states of emergency" defined by said president.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by Castillo

 

It doesn't open FEMA camps, create special authority to takeover TV stations,

Correct. Those functions are provided by already existing EOs.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 ( 27 F.R. 1519 ) allows the government to seize and control the communication media. It establishes the Telecommunications Management Agency that provides for the "takeover" of ALL communications media in the United States. This includes broadcast and cable television, ALL radio stations, ALL satelite earth stations and satelites and ALL telephone companies and telephone systems in the United States.

Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An"emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA had spent only about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies while the bulk of their funding had been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to ensure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EO 12148 (which was enacted in 1979) doesn't mention, anywhere in its text, "funding" ... "for construction of secret underground facilities."

Here's a tip: not everything you read on the Internet is real, or even written by very intelligent people.

I get the feeling that many people here have "unfiltered brains" - by which I mean anything you pore into it is simply absorbed as fact. There is no filtering process to subjectively evaluate which may be a legitimate source of correctly evaluating or deciphering topics the reader doesn't understand and which may be a high school drop-out ranting on his blog.

Originally posted by Druid42
Hmm, let's see If I can comprehend this:

Administrative law focuses on the exercise of government authority by the executive branch and its agencies. These agencies are created by Congress through "enabling legislation," and are authorized to promulgate regulations which have the same force as statutory law.

Statutory Law is when laws are passed by the government that have been accepted by our society.

So, it appears an EO is an administrative law, with the full force of a statutory law, but that EOs can be enacted by the president that create new agencies, such as FEMA, and carefully by-pass the constitution in "states of emergency" defined by said president.

no, you still don't get it

Administrative Law is another word for "regulation." An administrative law requires congressional authority to enact and each administrative law must refer to the enabling statute. For instance, Congress establishes Yellowstone National Park and authorizes the Executive Branch to operate that park. Using that congressional statute and edict "to operate the park", the E.B. then enacts administrative law to establish things like operating hours, campground rules, fishing regulations, etc., within Yellowstone.

Administrative law regulates the operation of the government, it does not regulate the operation of the citizenry. For instance, no one can be arrested for violation of administrative law. It is a set of rules setting forth how agencies and employees of the executive branch are supposed to discharge their duties. It is the way in which the President, as "employer" of E.B. staff, directs them to work. Your boss at work may assign you to do something through an operating manual or a memo. Administrative law is the equivalent of that.

There are many community colleges that offer "Introduction to Civics" courses for adults you might be interested in checking out.

Originally posted by paxnatus

Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions

www.whitehouse.gov

ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the leg

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 7/7/2012 by paxnatus because: typo

The ONLY WAY to stop this is to REMOVE the POWER of EXECUTIVE ORDER from the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT and CONGRESS has the AUTHORITY TO DO SO !

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

Originally posted by paxnatus

Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions

www.whitehouse.gov

ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the leg

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 7/7/2012 by paxnatus because: typo

The ONLY WAY to stop this is to REMOVE the POWER of EXECUTIVE ORDER from the OFFICE of the PRESIDENT and CONGRESS has the AUTHORITY TO DO SO !

Why are you screaming?

Congress does not have the power to abolish executive orders. Article II, Section 1 of the constitution states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

All an Executive Order is, is a formal communication from the head of the executive branch to one or more employees of the Executive Branch to do something. It is a function of the exercise of "the executive power."

Executive Orders have been issued continuously since 1789. They are not a conspiracy, it's a fancy name for a memo.

reply to post by Castillo


You have the patience of a saint, and I admire how you are trying very hard to educate the fear out of folks, but I don't think they are going to get it.

Or, maybe they don't want to get it?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Source.

I'm beginning to question your stance on this issue. You make EOs appear to be nothing more than "memos", without the full weight of the law.

Are EOs laws, or not?

Originally posted by Castillo

And why has Obama waited until right this very second to issue this new EO?

LOLWUT

Which second should he have done it in?

Again, WHY all of a Sudden right now????

What's so "sudden" - I mean "SUDDEN!!!!!!" - about it?

Is there something significant about the date that I'm missing?

They seem to use the magic word "intent" loosely.

The word "intent" isn't used in this E.O. once. Like, literally, not once.

(Though, I'm unclear why it would be bad if it were.)

People should be afraid of them "doing it anyway" and see what happens after the damage is already done.

What language is this sentence written in?


This administration has enough real-world, non-exotic things to be ashamed of and adequate reasons to be ejected from office without introducing large doses of craziness and lunacy in the debate.

edit on 8-7-2012 by Castillo because: (no reason given)

Well it's just in time for the FBI to do what ever they're going to do tomorrow on 7/9. Is this just a coincidence?

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Castillo

 

You have the patience of a saint, and I admire how you are trying very hard to educate the fear out of folks, but I don't think they are going to get it.

Or, maybe they don't want to get it?

LOL - I'm just killing time waiting to meet someone who's running late.

The general lack of transparency of "the government" and its serpentine size, complexity and tendency to get into cover-ups (i.e. Pentagon Papers) has created an inherent level of healthy distrust. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population with lower levels of intellectual achievement who don't understand basic facts about the world in which they live; they desire to participate in this conversation about distrust but don't have the mental capacity to do it so gravitate to the most insane rantings available.

If I didn't know what an Executive Order, or an Automobile or a Camera was, I might think they were part of some black magic, too. Many posters in this thread are like the stereotypical natives who are afraid of having their photo taken because it will steal their soul. That's why I think it's our responsibility to treat them patiently, like you'd treat a child or a retarded person.

Originally posted by Druid42

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Source.

I'm beginning to question your stance on this issue. You make EOs appear to be nothing more than "memos", without the full weight of the law.

Are EOs laws, or not?

All three branches of government have the ability to pass laws:

(1) the Legislative Branch, by a majority vote of both houses, enacts Statute Law - these are, generally, laws that regulate the conduct of citizens (e.g. a law prohibiting you from blowing up an airplane)

(2) the Executive Branch, by order of the President, enacts Administrative Law - these are laws that regulate the conduct of Executive Branch employees and agencies (e.g. a law establishing the opening and closing hours of Yellowstone, or creating an advisory committee)

(3) the Judicial Branch, by court decree, enacts Case Law - these are laws the discover legal principles that serve as audits of the laws enacted by the legislative and executive branches

Again - your absence understanding of constitutional theory I think goes beyond what can be explained on a message board. Like I said, many community colleges offer civics courses for adults.

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by Castillo

And why has Obama waited until right this very second to issue this new EO?

LOLWUT

Which second should he have done it in?

Again, WHY all of a Sudden right now????

What's so "sudden" - I mean "SUDDEN!!!!!!" - about it?

Is there something significant about the date that I'm missing?

They seem to use the magic word "intent" loosely.

The word "intent" isn't used in this E.O. once. Like, literally, not once.

(Though, I'm unclear why it would be bad if it were.)

People should be afraid of them "doing it anyway" and see what happens after the damage is already done.

What language is this sentence written in?


This administration has enough real-world, non-exotic things to be ashamed of and adequate reasons to be ejected from office without introducing large doses of craziness and lunacy in the debate.

edit on 8-7-2012 by Castillo because: (no reason given)

Well it's just in time for the FBI to do what ever they're going to do tomorrow on 7/9. Is this just a coincidence?

*le sigh*

What are they going to do tomorrow and what blog or message board got inside information they're going to do it?

Will you still be participating in this thread at 12:01AM on 7/10 after, once again, another date has come and gone without the round-ups to the FEMA camps beginning?

America's first executive order was decreed on June 8, 1789 by George Washington and required federal agencies (an "Administrative Law") to complete an annual audit of their financial accounts and provide that audit to the President.

Roosevelt's first executive order - E.O. 7532 establishing Shinneock Migratory Bird Refuge (Congress passed a statute law allowing the president to, though administrative law [executive order], designate parts of federally owned lands as wildlife refuges)

Nixon's first executive order - E.O. 1152 establishing the Council on Urban Affairs, a committee to advise him on what policies his administration should pursue regarding infrastructure development in growing urban areas.

This is what you're all ranting about when you're ranting about "TEH CONSPIRACY! TEH EXECUTIVE ORDERS - WE GOTSA STOP 'EM!"

Originally posted by Castillo

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by Castillo

 

You have the patience of a saint, and I admire how you are trying very hard to educate the fear out of folks, but I don't think they are going to get it.

Or, maybe they don't want to get it?

LOL - I'm just killing time waiting to meet someone who's running late.

The general lack of transparency of "the government" and its serpentine size, complexity and tendency to get into cover-ups (i.e. Pentagon Papers) has created an inherent level of healthy distrust. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population with lower levels of intellectual achievement who don't understand basic facts about the world in which they live; they desire to participate in this conversation about distrust but don't have the mental capacity to do it so gravitate to the most insane rantings available.

If I didn't know what an Executive Order, or an Automobile or a Camera was, I might think they were part of some black magic, too. Many posters in this thread are like the stereotypical natives who are afraid of having their photo taken because it will steal their soul. That's why I think it's our responsibility to treat them patiently, like you'd treat a child or a retarded person.

Some people don't want to know the truth because it doesn't scare them. They want to be scared. I honestly am starting to think there is such a thing as an addiction to fear.