What is the enforcable extent of an "Executive Order"

[gutharius]

Wanted to know what is the enforcable extent of an "Executive Order" on the american populas in general?

I have read the President can perform the following action via executive order:

? 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.
? 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both
public and private.
? 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal
vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and
waterways.
? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.
? 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both
public and private.
? 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women and children in
the United States.
? 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports and aircraft.
? 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to
establish ?Relocation Designated Areas? and to force abandonment
of areas classified as ?unsafe.?

What are your thooughts on this?

 

[nageov3t]

that's pretty sweet.

 

[gutharius]

Actually D@MN scarey were my thoughts...

 

[nageov3t]

it implies a trust in our leaders.

 

[gutharius]

This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

 

[gutharius]

As far as i am concerned Bush and especially his cronies in his administration are not to be trusted.

 

[ntdz]

frankly, i think thats ridiculous. I doubt the Supreme Court would let any of the above happen however...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Meh, that's nothing compared to moderator powers on AT

All the EO's listed seem to only be appropriate during a national emergency.

 

[AndrewR]

I don't know for sure, but I would not at all be surprised to find out that Executive Orders are subject to review by the court system. The system of checks and balances works very well.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: gutharius
This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

I would like a link to prove this is actually an EXO.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: gutharius
This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

I would like a link to prove this is actually an EXO.

Executive Order 11000

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: gutharius
This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

I would like a link to prove this is actually an EXO.

Prior searches did not turn up a listing of executive orders. After doing some more searching I found out this was an executive order established in Kennedy's administration then later revoked and then "National Emergencies" were regulated by congress in 1976. Please refer to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...:1:./temp/~bdaFYj@@L . Tho' this bill does not answer my original question can an excutive order be enforced on the american populace at large. My understand and personal belief is no. But I would like to have this confirmed to make me feel better about an article on Peak-Oil I was reading that has me rather bothered...

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: gutharius
This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

I would like a link to prove this is actually an EXO.

Executive Order 11000

This EXO no longer exists.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Wanted to know what is the enforcable extent of an "Executive Order" on the american populas in general?

I have read the President can perform the following action via executive order:

? 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.
? 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both
public and private.
? 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal
vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and
waterways.
? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.
? 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both
public and private.
? 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women and children in
the United States.
? 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports and aircraft.
? 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to
establish ?Relocation Designated Areas? and to force abandonment
of areas classified as ?unsafe.?

What are your thooughts on this?

Links to the full content of EO's
10995 Assigning telecommunications Management Functions February 16, 1962
I didn't read anywhere that stated he has the "right to seize all communications media in the US." care to show me that quote in context?

10997 Assigning Emergency Preparednes Functions to the Secretary of the Interior February 16, 1962
"These plans and programs shall be designed to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States. " Um... Nothing wrong with making sure that our defenses have all the power, fuel and minerals that they will need.

10999 Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Secretary of Commerce February 16, 1962
"Development and coordination of over-all policies, plans, and procedures for the provision of a centralized control of all modes of transportation in an emergency for the movement of passenger and freight traffic of all types, and the determination of the proper apportionment and allocation of the total civil transportation capacity, or any portion thereof, to meet over-all essential civil and military needs." Once again... Nothing wrong with controlling the ground so that our defenses and materials are best utilized and transported.

11000 Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Secretary of Labor February 16, 1962
See 10999 comments above.

11001 Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare February 16, 1962
Once again... Wartime needs... Needs no further explanation.

11002 Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Postmaster General February 16, 1962
Is this what they are saying is "forced registration?"

(a) Registration system. Assist in planning a national program and developing technical guidance for States, and directing Post Office activities concerned with registering persons and families for the purpose of receiving and answering welfare inquiries, and reuniting families in civil defense emergencies. The program shall include:

1. Forms. Procurement, transportation, storage, and distribution of safety notification and emergency change of address cards in quantities and localities jointly determined by the Department of Defense and the Post Office Department.

2. Training. Conduct of training programs for postal employees which will enable them to operate emergency central postal directories and to assist in the operation of a national emergency registration system including support of local welfare activities in reuniting families.

Take off the tinfoil hats boys.... Any emergency operations (tornado's, earthquakes etc...) have registration for the areas... It only makes sense. Besides, there are many other federal and state entities that force "registration"....

11003 Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Administrator or the Federal Aviation Agency February 16, 1962
Control the skies... nothing wrong with that in time of national emergency. See 9/11. They shut down the skies. Also see 10999.

11004 Assigning Certain Emergency Preparedness Functions to the Housing and Home Finance Administrator February 16, 1962
Harsh but it's reality. You may need to be forced from your home. This happens with Hurricanes and post earthquakes (natural disasters) all the time.

They are all real and fully enforcable. You can look at them witht he slant that the OP found somewhere or you can read them and see them for what they are... They were created during the build up to the Cuban Missle Crisis in October or 62. This was a time where EVERY ONE IN THE US was thinking that they were going to die because of Russia and Nukes. :: duck and cover ::

All Political slants ignored... Read them and then tell me what is wrong with them knowing that they will only be utilized in time of emergency (full attack on the US etc...)

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: gutharius
This one scares me:

? 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up
families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place
the government sees fit.

I would like a link to prove this is actually an EXO.

Executive Order 11000

Anyone read the date on this stuff. It goes back to 1962. Sorry, Bush hasn't been a target of liberals that long.

 

[Dissipate]

The amount of power the government has today is absolutely terrifying, especially with the Patriot Act. Here is a book of warning. Ominous Parallels

 

[Zebo]

President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

How's Iraq going? Think that's hard, Try and take Dallas Tx.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Meh, that's nothing compared to moderator powers on AT

Wee don't need no stinking first amendment heere!

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

You can't occupy and control territory without infantry, and infantry wear body armor which can be easily shredded at long distance by high-powered hunting rifles. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry if they are not supported by their own infantry -- a tank in Iraq had its commander and gunner killed when a guy climbed up the back and fired his AKM into the open hatch. Had they been operating with dismounted infantry, that would not have happened.

That's not saying that the US military wouldn't generally dominate, but a well-armed citizenry could do some serious damage. An unarmed population can do nothing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

You can't occupy and control territory without infantry, and infantry wear body armor which can be easily shredded at long distance by high-powered hunting rifles. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry if they are not supported by their own infantry -- a tank in Iraq had its commander and gunner killed when a guy climbed up the back and fired his AKM into the open hatch. Had they been operating with dismounted infantry, that would not have happened.

That's not saying that the US military wouldn't generally dominate, but a well-armed citizenry could do some serious damage. An unarmed population can do nothing.

All true, but if there were a crisis that caused a President to use troops to control the populace, the majority of people would go along with it either because of the serious nature of whatever hypothetical one constructs, or be cowed by public opinion. The pre-Iraq war is a good example. No arrests needed to be made, but few (certainly not the press) questioned the premise before the war. If there had been a nuclear attack against NY instead of two buildings getting knocked down with minimum casualties (and lets be objective here, the amount of true physical damage caused by 9/11 was insignificant compared to one good days bombing in WWII), those people with guns would most likely turn them on fellow citizens who object to govt. policy.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

You can't occupy and control territory without infantry, and infantry wear body armor which can be easily shredded at long distance by high-powered hunting rifles. Tanks are vulnerable to infantry if they are not supported by their own infantry -- a tank in Iraq had its commander and gunner killed when a guy climbed up the back and fired his AKM into the open hatch. Had they been operating with dismounted infantry, that would not have happened.

That's not saying that the US military wouldn't generally dominate, but a well-armed citizenry could do some serious damage. An unarmed population can do nothing.

We also have people here with access to chemicals (or know how to make them from precursors), tool and die euipment, CNC machinery etc and the skill to use them. Wouldnt take long before we were close to matched then the government would have to use serious weaponry which would'nt go over well with the Generals to the private who had family and friends in the area.


No guns are needed as a last resort to protect the people from a tyranical government..or at least make them think twice before becoming that way.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Zebo
President is king as long as people go along with it. (.mil to be more percise)

And liberals want to take our guns.:roll:

And you think your guns are going to work against jet fighters and tanks? LMAO.

The terrorists seem to be doing OK with guns in Iraq against the best we have.