DescentBB

40 Years of Executive Orders Trashes Our Constitutional Guarantee of Liberty

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is bypassed.

Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen.

It should be noted that over time, some of the following Executive Orders have been rescinded or replaced by others. But the true terror to our liberty rests with the ease in which they can be issued and how earlier orders are frequently replaced by those of a more draconian nature:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

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

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

* 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.

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

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a \"new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.\"

The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a \"drug crisis\". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, \"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.\" That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. \"Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.

Oh, and in case you think this is a conspiracy-type post without merit, you can look them up for yourself here..

http://www.archives.gov/search/index.html

Enjoy!

This is why the house of represenatives and the senate can impeach a president if need be.

Majority of the house, two thirds of the senate would remove him from office for abuse of power.
The president isn't a god.

Interesting though....

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:This is why the house of represenatives and the senate can impeach a president if need be.

Majority of the house, two thirds of the senate would remove him from office for abuse of power.
The president isn't a god.

Interesting though....

Bee

Im pretty sure they got ways around that as well. And when you elect a house and senate that is in unison with the president, you wont get much of an impeachment process going anyway.

Top Wop wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:This is why the house of represenatives and the senate can impeach a president if need be.

Majority of the house, two thirds of the senate would remove him from office for abuse of power.
The president isn't a god.

Interesting though....

Bee

Im pretty sure they got ways around that as well. And when you elect a house and senate that is in unison with the president, you wont get much of an impeachment process going anyway.

I doubt that. Past history shows that things like that don't happen even in a party majority of both house and senate.

Bee

I doubt that. Past history shows that things like that don't happen even in a party majority of both house and senate.

Yeah, sort of like the Clinton impeachement.

Bet51987 wrote:This is why the house of represenatives and the senate can impeach a president if need be.

Majority of the house, two thirds of the senate would remove him from office for abuse of power.
The president isn't a god.

Interesting though....

Bee

Impeachment is not the act of removing the President from office. A President can be impeached and still remain in office.

Fusion pimp wrote:

I doubt that. Past history shows that things like that don't happen even in a party majority of both house and senate.

Yeah, sort of like the Clinton impeachement.

What Clinton did was disgusting, but not an abuse of power. He didn't use exectutive pull to do what he did and it was not something that would require guns to be drawn on the whitehouse steps. Even some republicans at the time thought it was ridiculous to waste so much government time for a marital indescretion.

But, for the intent of the OP, I don't think it could happen.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Even some republicans at the time thought it was ridiculous to waste so much government time for a marital indescretion.

He was not impeached for a marital indiscresion as you call it. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury while under oath and then trying to cover it up afterwards by tampering with witnesses.

That is a hugely serious matter. The President works for me. I am his employer. If I lied to my employer and got caught, I would not expect to keep my job. Why should the President be any different?

Dedman wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Even some republicans at the time thought it was ridiculous to waste so much government time for a marital indescretion.

He was not impeached for a marital indiscresion as you call it. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury while under oath and then trying to cover it up afterwards by tampering with witnesses.

That is a hugely serious matter. The President works for me. I am his employer. If I lied to my employer and got caught, I would not expect to keep my job. Why should the President be any different?

I know you are right and I agree with what you say but I want to test the point anyway. His lying, cheating, coverup and such, had nothing to do with the national affairs of the country. All of it was of a personal nature and this never should have exploded like it did and was nothing more than the republicans getting even for what the democrats did to Nixon. (At least thats what I learned.)

If you got caught cheating with a coworker after hours in your office and your boss found out... and you denied that you did.... and he shows you proof, he may not fire you over that because it was after hours, and it has nothing to do with business. He most certainly will ask you to stop. (I have no experience on this so I may be wrong.)

Presidents lie all the time. Clintons lie was not of national security but of a personal matter and in my opinion was not worth dragging the country thru the mud like it was.

Geez, it was even in our history books. How disgusting was that. It was none of our business.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:Presidents lie all the time. Clintons lie was not of national security but of a personal matter and in my opinion was not worth dragging the country thru the mud like it was.

I think the point was that he lied under oath. If he lies under oath, how can you trust him with anything else, especially when he's not under oath and has even less incentive to tell the truth?

Bet51987 wrote: His lying, cheating, coverup and such, had nothing to do with the national affairs of the country.

When a President lies under oath, it has everything to do with national affairs. We are a nation of laws and no man, not even a President, is above them.

Bet51987 wrote: All of it was of a personal nature and this never should have exploded like it did and was nothing more than the republicans getting even for what the democrats did to Nixon.

The affair itself may have been of a personal nature and the uproar over it may have been politically motivated. However, if that is the case then the proper response to the grand jury, when asked if he had had a relationship with the intern, should have been “That is a personal matter, not for public record, and I refuse to answer that question”.

Bet51987 wrote: If you got caught cheating with a coworker after hours in your office and your boss found out...

I would be fired immediately for improper use of company property.

Bet51987 wrote: and you denied that you did.... and he shows you proof

I would be fired immediately for lying. If a business or manager can’t trust it’s employees, then it or they have no business employing that person in the first place.

Bet51987 wrote: Presidents lie all the time.

By that rational, Charles Manson should be set free.

Bet51987 wrote: Clintons lie was not of national security but of a personal matter

When the President lies under oath then further violates the law by tampering with witnesses, it most certainly is a matter of national security. If a President thinks he is above the law, how secure a nation are we?

I believe that is the whole point of this thread.

Bet51987 wrote: Geez, it was even in our history books. How disgusting was that. It was none of our business.

Misbehavior of our elected officials is always our business. If you don’t think so, then you don’t deserve to be a citizen of this country.

Dedman wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Bet51987 wrote: If you got caught cheating with a coworker after hours in your office and your boss found out...

I would be fired immediately for improper use of company property.

Not to mention that fact that the company would have to protect itself from potential sexual harrassment fallout. And, had this ("cheating" at work) happened, I should be fired simply for being a moron for choosing to engage in this behavior in my workplace. This is just as dumb as downloading pr0n on the company network - I am asking to be kicked out.

a couple at my company was caught, in flagrante delicto, making love on a board room table. (glass walls, the parking lot apparently had quite a view).

Not only are they no longer with the company, I imagine they had difficulties finding another job anywhere in the same industry.

And, ah, yes, we did have the table cleaned up.

Another guy insisted upon viewing porn on his office computer. He was given a few warnings, but the third time they caught him, bye bye. His office was cleaned out and he was escorted to the door.

Samuel Dravis wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Presidents lie all the time. Clintons lie was not of national security but of a personal matter and in my opinion was not worth dragging the country thru the mud like it was.

I think the point was that he lied under oath. If he lies under oath, how can you trust him with anything else, especially when he's not under oath and has even less incentive to tell the truth?

The current congress/administration (it's hard to separate them at this point) seems to have learned a lesson from Clinton's mistake. Is their solution to never lie under oath? Nope, their solution is to skip the step of swearing in before testifying.

Unbelievable.

You noticed that too huh Genghis?

I thought the post was about the executive orders, which goes to show that the \"free\" world is only as free as our masters want it to be. Whenever they want to clamp down, they will and can, who can stop them?