The Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008

The Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008

www.fas.org

The President would no longer be able to secretly modify or revoke a published executive order if a new bill introduced in the Senate yesterday becomes law.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, responds to a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion that was revealed last year by Senator Whitehouse on the Senate floor...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
rawstory.com
revolutionredux.wordpress.com
emptywheel.firedoglake.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'état by National Emergency
Bush's Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can't See it

The actual bill is here:
www.fas.org...

It seems quite brief but specific in its intent to limit the increasing law secrecy shown by this administration. I have to wonder if the super secret attachment to Bush's NSPD-51 Martial Law Plan may have had something to do with this legislation.

If you guys remember, that was the attachment to the Bush Executive Order NSPD-51 where its viewing was explicitly denied to people in Congress that had the otherwise appropriate security clearance to view it.

I think that this is a good move, and support it. We the people have an inherent right to know the laws that bind us- and blind us.

The bill basically requires any changes to Executive Orders to be placed in the Federal Registry within 30 days, among other things.

www.fas.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

On the surface this may look like a good thing but if you take a step back and look at this proposal, it makes me wonder....

First of all, there seems to be a complete lack of trust in our leaders in DC.

How did we get here? WE (citizens), voted them in that's how, shouldn't we do our best to send trustworthy people to represent the citizens?

So now we have an untrustworthy congress wanting to mandate how an untrustworthy executive administration conducts it's business.

It doesn't sit right with me, if WE (citizens) do a better job of selecting our representatives , senators, & presidents, this bickering and backstabbing and the slow erosion of separation of powers would not be necessary.

If all was right, we should be able to trust our elected to make decisions that affect the country, both open & secret, that trust has been lost. I don't think a mandate from another branch of untrustworthy elected will make it better and only make it harder for future elected to do the country's business.

Look at what is happening now and how our elected are dealing with urgent problems we face, how many of you would take a FIVE week vacation, with the country in current economic crisis?

I think a major change is needed in who WE (citizens), send back to DC next January, it is your right to send them home.

Who do YOU trust?

Historically speaking, every avenue available for abuse of power has been seized by those entrusted with that power.

Regardless of the fact that we should be able to trust those in power, we can't. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The degradation of civil liberties, the eroding of the framework of our constitutional representative democracy, the voiding of our 'inalienable' rights, are all symptomatic of the fact that without oversight and recourse to demand and receive redress, we are subject to the whim of 'cabals' and ideologically motivated selfish 'affiliations'.

This law doesn't go far enough in my book. This government can only be 'of, for, and by' the people: - as long as we have transparency on demand; - the judicial and legislative 'checks and balances' are more than virtual - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY as long as those in government are LOYAL to the People of the United States MORE than the political party and it's 'for sale' nature.

reply to post by Maxmars


Believe me, I can see and understand your point of view and historical perspective, I am looking at the what can I do?, perspective, if our current elected have lost all trust of the populous, i can't see them mandating anything that helps us out, it would only be a power play amongst themselves.

The liberties lost that you speak of are mainly due to the Patriot Act, which we all know came about in the aftermath of 9/11, and had to be passed by Congress, and as has happened in the past, legislation made with good intent, has been usurped by those who would use it to justify an invasion of the citizens' privacy.

Case in point the recent Maryland state police conducting an undercover op to monitor some peace activist groups in the Baltimore area under the guise of homeland security, among others like the wiretapping issue.

For me, I would much rather have a wholesale elected representative change in DC, something we can do, in hopes of changing the current mentality of those who serve us.

In the end I may be looking through rose colored glasses, because I would like to believe in the system of government that we have, it may be, that even if, there was an overhaul of faces in DC, things would remain the same.

I still hold out a glimmer of hope...

reply to post by SaveTheDrama


I understand. I was not really trying to diminish what you said, I only wanted to point out that if we are to be 'good stewards' of our national framework, we must start by accepting that the process we use to select representatives has devolved into something which no longer functions in line with its intended purpose.

We see our leaders (I hate calling them that) are products and members of political party machinations that have little to nothing to do with the integrity of our nation. They only serve themselves and their benefactors, namely Big Money, which can never be trusted to be committed to the common welfare of the citizens.

I believe in our form of government, and to some degree, I accept and agree with our economic model of choice. The problem is that the ideologues and corporatists have aligned themselves with self-serving motivations and purchased their membership and ownership in the two-party illusion. And our executive body is not only loyal to them, but is more deeply entrenched in his ideology than in the ideological principles he 'swore and oath' to protect and uphold.

I'm sorry for all those I am about to offend, but being a 'businessmen' should be considered a detractor from one ability to serve as president. A country is NOT a business, nor should it be run as one. Citizens are NOT employees and should NOT be consigned to accept that their leaders get the CEO style benefits and wealth while the people toil to support their whims, as is often the case in business (Banking, anyone?).

The key is transparency and accountability. The two 'dirty words' that government resists at almost every turn. Corporate Citizenship is what started us down this slippery slope (if you will excuse the establishment of the Fed). Once they became citizens they used their collective power to infiltrate and overthrow any hope of a government 'of, for, and by' the people of this country.

Action points for a restoration of the Nation to it's noble path:

Revoke the Fed charter
Issue currency from congressional authority
Eliminate and recreate the tax revenue model
revoke corporate citizenship
empty and refill the positions of leadership in all federal agencies, FCC, FDA, EPA, FBI, etc.
Reseat Congress AND the Supreme court
Limit executive power by increasing its legal responsibility to the people

Just a few random thoughts on this fine morning!

Good posts you guys. And I agree with most if not all what you guys are saying. There are two sides to every story and then there's the truth. At least the federal register is some attempt at the truth, from both untrustworthy sides. I would rather see legislation like this in place to achieve whatever little effect we can gain towards accountability in the Oval Office.

The media is a major problem with the way our election system is setup, yielding only a very few choices, and often choices that make no real sense whatsoever, except to those who stand to gain from puppet candidates. Until there is a way for candidates who will really act in the best interests of the public to have national exposure, we are going to keep repeating this ridiculous cycle of abuse of power and governing for personal interest.

Ron Paul was the man to help achieve REAL change in this system, not the weak, superficial "change" that Obama is espousing. The only changes I see with him as President is higher taxes and spending like this country has never seen. Like we really need more of a deficit? And you think he's going to get our troops out of Iraq with all the pressure the military industrial complex will bring to bear? Fat chance.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Action points for a restoration of the Nation to it's noble path:

Revoke the Fed charter
Issue currency from congressional authority
Eliminate and recreate the tax revenue model
revoke corporate citizenship
empty and refill the positions of leadership in all federal agencies, FCC, FDA, EPA, FBI, etc.
Reseat Congress AND the Supreme court
Limit executive power by increasing its legal responsibility to the people

Just a few random thoughts on this fine morning!

This would be an ultimate goal, but it would have to be taken in steps.

I would love to see this happen overnight but in reality, it would cause much chaos, it will take years to reach this goal, but we have to start somewhere.

What you speak of has been circulating for quite some time, the problem is we never take the first step.

What might that be?

Well, talking here is good, it seems many open minded people come here searching...

Discussing with those you know & meet is another avenue.

The most important part is to VOTE!

Never give up your right to choose.

The problem that arises is that, what you would like to see happen, makes sense, but it doesn't strike at emotion, conditioning comes to mind, you either get emotionally charged people railing off talking points, or you get people turned off by talking points.

The people turned off are the KEY (and the majority) in my opinion.

If we could get them motivated, interested and give them hope that they matter, things could change.

Like I said earlier, I have a glimmer of hope, I will hold onto it tightly and after discussing this with you, the glimmer got brighter

I appreciate your insight to this and I thank the OP for presenting this topic.

It's nice to have a discussion without the mudslinging.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The Federal Government is supposed to be transparent, so as to keep one politician over another from having an agenda, and screwing up the system, and abusing the system, and profiting from the system.

Once Bush and Cheney are out of office, I think a lot of people will be breathing a lot easier.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Yes, and we desperately need to get the Government Accountability Office (GAO) more involved in oversight. The more oversight from them the better, as far as I am concerned. Approximately 1000 out of some 3000 employees there have top secret security clearances, and they complain that this administration has not been very cooperative with any attempted investigations.

It figures that one real good place Americans spend their money (the GAO), is getting used very little in this regard. Hell, if it makes sense, don't do it

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I completely agree!


What is the chance of this becomming law though?

Let's go back to the first one, General Orders 100 (the declaration of martial law)...how have things been since then? Thoughts? Anyone?

reply to post by SaveTheDrama


I have always tried to be completely open to the fact that partisan considerations are approximately inconsequential in the scheme of running the country.

That may sound outrageous to some, who steadfastly believe in the party they feel best represents them. However, for all the partisan heroes in the political world of false courage, hubris, and game theory; we see little to the effect of actual representation. Our national framework is very explicit in terms of what the people are contractually obliged to receive from its governance. The political parties are poised as if to be on the brink of breaking that contract utterly. The Executive Body is merely a political extension of the party, the Legislative Branch is veiled by concealment and 'confidentiality, and the Judiciary has become a political and commercial protection racket.

Commerce is the aim of the political parties, the machine is driven by wealth and nothing else. In our recent history we have seen some of the most incredibly incompetent leaders coddled and protected by the parties (they protect each other). Every meager and spindly attempt to insert a new perspective via a third party or independent candidate has been met with scorn, derision, and disrespect - akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

We might actually be better off with two parties, instead of one pretending to be two.

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Let's go back to the first one, General Orders 100 (the declaration of martial law)...how have things been since then? Thoughts? Anyone?

I feel so ignorant. When was martial law declared, did I miss it?

reply to post by Quazga

What is the chance of this becomming law though?

About the same chances that the people in Congress want some watchdog branch chasing down their new President to update the federal register. Probably 0. Well, I'll increase that to maybe 1.5%, seeing as a couple of them sponsored the thing. I mean come on, why would Obama and cartel or MacCain want to complicate their parade through the Oval Office and have to be monitored like some domestic wiretappee? Can't have THAT now!

reply to post by TrueAmerican
Hey TA - I missed you.

It seems to me there is already an oversight to this issue. Checks & Balances.

I agree that it needs to be specific; but without an individual or individuals given specific responsibility to perform these actions and consequences for not performing it is as effective as kissing you're sister.

What I propose is that if we the people can be monitored, detained and prosecuted, the same must apply to those that we have supposedly chosen to represent our interests. A public revealing mechanism for all political actions - I know - how about the internet?

Bottom line - who do we trust indeed?

I would much rather my fellow ATS'ers monitor the bureaucrats than another bureaucrat.

I trust them - well more than the political crowd.

With congresses poor approval ratings I expect more laws to be introduced that are similar. The government or this administration has operated without any checks and balances, Congress can't even get people who have been summoned to congress to even show up.

A republic requires transparency not secrecy.

We need to contact or congressmen and support this.

Originally posted by kerontehe
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Hey TA - I missed you.

Thanks man, yeah I've been in another world lately, but maybe I'll be around more.

It seems to me there is already an oversight to this issue. Checks & Balances.

lol, yeah, except it seems the checks keep showing up on the black side of their bank account balances. Follow WHAT money? It's all in Exxon's hands, and what little is left is getting spent chasing phantasm terrorists in countries that are being no-lube raped. Isn't Vaseline made with oil?

Maybe what really needs to happen is Executive Orders need to be outlawed altogether, and instead have Executive Referendums from the people. If Presidents are going to keep abusing a trusted power, then take the power back or assign it elsewhere. And the GAO to me sounds like a good "elsewhere."

For anyone wanting to check out what Executive Orders have been published to the Federal Register (by President Name), here's a handy link:

www.archives.gov...

The GAO should have administrative control over that website as well, if they don't already.

But we have another problem: Who's going to oversee the GAO No, not the United Nations- don't even try it.

Bottom line - who do we trust indeed?

I was willing to put my trust in Ron Paul- not necessarily in his ability to achieve what he really wanted- but in that I could trust him not to rule by self interest. He himself uses the saying "Good deeds are done in the sunlight." He'd be more likely to spend his time figuring out how to get rid of existing Executive Orders than making new ones.

I would much rather my fellow ATS'ers monitor the bureaucrats than another bureaucrat.

I trust them - well more than the political crowd.

We can only monitor what is in the sunshine.