Posted on 07/19/2009 12:24:12 PM PDT by ex-Texan
First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America’s legitimate Commander-In Chief.
World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.
Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.
Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.
One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.
They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.
Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:
“Sec.2
Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”
Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released? If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.
But the reports posted there are definitely NOT pro-Obama. From reading comments posted on the site it is clear that his birth certificate is not in the official government archives. But a background check or security of Obama must have been performed before he was sworn in as president. All items relating to his birth and the contents of the background check are covered by the Executive Order [EO]. His birth records, school records, Indonesian passport records, were certainly all made before he (allegedly) became president. Those documents aren’t “presidential records.” No EO or statute can define them as such.
Therefore, I will simply post this news report with my caveats for all to read it here on FR. Make of it what you will. I do not see an Executive Order overriding a Congressional investigation of official misconduct in office. The order must be considered as void and without any force or effect. We are still a constitutional republic and not a dictatorship . . .
Read that on another blog. Dated on the 26th of Jan. He and his handlers are going to destroy this country.
This proves the President of the United States is a KENYAN.
*Ping* !
The emperor has no clothes, and now he orders that nobody look. Outrageous.
The guy hasn’t done much ‘within the rule of Law’. This is not unexpected. He’s paid around a million dollars to prevent disclosure of his birth certificate. He clearly has something to hide.
There are tons of sites dealing with this issue on the net.
ping
And Obama again answered that he is Kenyan by rescinding Major Cook’s deployment oreders instead of face him in court.
The way I read it, it applies to the Archivist. The hospital, or the guy on ebay ain’t “the Archivist.” Think the author is stretching it some.
parsy,who survived the most dangerous night of television once again
When it comes to this obvious self-protection mis-use of “Executive Orders,” the phrase “Tin Pot Dictator” comes to mind.
From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tin-pot_dictator we have
“tin-pot dictator (plural tin-pot dictators) An autocratic ruler with little political credibility, but with self-delusions of grandeur.”
What Congressional investigation? By the current group in office? They are law breaking enablers not investigators.
I agree with you. This pertains only to activities of the President while occupying the office of the Presidency.
From ThisNation.com:
What is an Executive Order?
From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
“We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do anything legislatively.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).
Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.
President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution — that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.
Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation’s “Chief Diplomat.” In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College
Additional Resources
The ultimate criticism of Executive Orders is that the runaway use of EOs could result in a President becoming a virtual dictator, capable of making major policy decisions without any congressional or judicial input. The following web sites contain articles arguing against the liberal use of Executive Orders by the President.
The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking? William Olsen, Cato Institute
Executive Orders A Blueprint for Dictatorship? Tanya L. Green, J.D., Concerned Women for America
For What Purposes Have Presidents Used Executive Orders?
The best way to get a feel for the types of “laws” that are made by Executive Order is to access them online. Executive Orders are available through multiple government publications and on the Internet (except those classified in the name of national security). You can read the text of these orders daily in the Federal Register and also under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations. All EOs have been numbered and published since 1936.
Sites Providing Access to Executive Orders
The White House
Executive Orders Disposition Tables (Federal Register)
Fedlaw
Executive Orders in the States
The use of Executive Orders is not just a presidential activity. They are also used by most state governors, who are the chief executives of their states. The following links will give you a feel for the types of Executive Orders used in a few states:
Florida
Pennsylvania
Utah
It’s an impediment, directed at the truth, none the less.
I like manning perspective....
which says a lot by itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5I6ho0Qjco
pretty much hits the nail on the head!
Any reason to save the WORLD is acceptable...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.