| OCR Text |
Show Page 10 The Utah Independent January 23, 1975 The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand EXECUTIVE OF DER NO 11490 Continued existing emergency, President Nixon could have stand-b- y Execactivated his own utive Order No. 11490 of October 28, 1969, which was published in the Federal Register two days later. As quoted in the United States Code and Congressional News (10) for November 20, 1969, this Nixon Order No. 11490 sweeps the regulation of our entire population into the allocated absolute control of twenty -eight separate branches of the Federal bureaucracy, beginning with the Department of State and ending with the Veterans Administration. all-embra- cing In this Executive Order, the head of each of the functions assigned to him by the decree, along with re --delegations to employees of the United States, for strict enforcement. Comprehended somewhere in these 28 Delegations of National Authority are the controls of all communication media, electric and other power sources , food supplies, transportation and highways, railroads, inland waterways, storage facilities, civilian labor control, health, education and welfare. By the terms of the order every person" in the country would be registered and, where necessary, entire populations would be shifted from one area to another. Federal management of all farms and productive properties would be assumed and Wages and prices would be frozen. Private homes would be requisitioned where necessary them in the State Department. The government attorney said that several hundred such orders had been issued during the previous month. As a result of this court colloquy, the publication of the Federal Register was begun March 14, 1936. Since then, ignorance of what is published in it is no excuse for violating any of its mandates. The Supreme Court then decided that the National Recovery Act was unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative power by Congress to the President (Panama Refining Company vs. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388; Schechter Poultry Company vs. U.S. 295 U.S. these agencies is directed to re-deleg- ate co-ordina- 495 - Existing Executive Orders themselves , such as Nixon's No. 11490, do not declare that a national emergency exists. Each merely paves the way for the activation of its commands when and if such an emergency is declared by the President. Since 1935, the only interference by the Supreme Court with the execution of a Presidential Executive Order came on June 2, 1952, when the Court, by a vote of 6 to 3, invalidated President Truman's Executive Order No. 10340, made on April 8, 1952, directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the steel mills of the country to prevent the stoppage of all steel production by a strike of all the mills, which the union had called on April 7(Youngstown Sheet and Tube vs. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579). The decision of the Court nullified the Presidential seizure of the mills for two reasons: Said the decision: "The President's order does not direct that a Congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress. (On the contrary) It directs that a Presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The Constitution does not subpower of Congress to ject this Presidential ng control. " 1 Other concurring Justices pointed out that Congress itself had specifically provided a remedy for such a strike in the injunctive proey visions of the Act, which the Justices said the President should have used. Taft-Hartl- "steel seizure decision," contains the last word that the Supreme Court has spoken on the validity of Presidential Executive Orders. It does not touch the Executive Orders that declare an "emergency," such as This, the so-cal- led Nixon's No. 11490, which are based on innumerable statutes of Congress that have been passed and have never been repealed. minority of the Court in the steel seizure case would have upheld the President's order because of our treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter. In 1952, this country was fighting a bloody U. N. war in Korea. Said dissenting Chief Justice Vinson: "Our treaties represent not merely legal obligations but show that mutual security for the free world is the best security against the threat of aggression on a global scale. " He went on to say that the President, therefore, had the obligation as Commander In Chief of our forces in Korea, and as the Director of our Foreign Relations, to see that our production of steel for the fighting men in the armed forces should not stop. A ted. 1935). law-maki- ;m page Treaty Law Our Foreign Relations thus give an entirely new and much wider dimension to the power of Presidential Orders when they are linked to the President's agreements with foreign nations. Unfortunately, our Constitution says that, "all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. " The "authority of the United States" in this case means merely the negotiation of a treaty by the President and its ratification by 23 of the U. S. Senators present and voting. But that slender, constitutional protection of our states and of our citizens and of their property against interference by treaties has since been diminished beyond the power of perception. In 1942, the Supreme Court held that no state law or policy can prevail against an agreement between the President and the head of a foreign nation (U.S. vs. Pink, (1942) 315 U.S. 203). The President has the power to determine foreign policy, said the Court, and the constitutional Bill of Rights and its protection of private property does not stand in the way of giving full force and effect to an agreement between the Presidentand the head of a foreign for proper shelter of the population. Bank deposit withdrawals would be regulated and the stock and grain exchanges closed. The Nixon order provides that similar or re- lated authorities called for in every preceding Executive Order by all past Presidents of the United States should be incorporated in Nixon's No. 11490, unless such order has previously been revoked. In invoking this drastic nationwide command simply by declaring that a national emergency existed, President Nixon could have subjected the entire country to his absolute "rule by decree" and thrown the Watergate investigation of his Administration . into a dizzy tailspin. Continued on page 1 1 Gun Control Lobby's Sneak Attack Reprinted from THE PHOENIX GAZETTE For years the handgun control lobby has fought for federal legislation which would disarm sportsmen and other citizens who own such firearms. When this frontal assault achieved only limited results, the lobby turned to a sneak attack. What the handgun haters could not accomplish by law, they might very well accomplish by regulation. The end result would be the same. Xhe Committee for Hand Gun Control has been quietly busy in federal courts, and it has been making headway. U.S. District Judge Thomas A. Flannery of Washington. D.C. has ruled that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has authority under the Consumer Product Safety Act to ban handgun ammunition. This ruling was made despite federal law excluding guns and ammunition from the definition of "consumer law-abidi- ng product." The judge ordered the commission to consider the gun control group's proposal to ban the manufacture and sale of handgun ammunition under the Hazardous Substances Act. The commission aided and abetted this court action when it ruled last September that a handgun cartridge falls within "the literal meaning of a 'hazardous substance'." Nevertheless, the commission said it did not believe that Congress had given the commission authority to ban handgun cartridges. It follows that if. the commercial manufacture of handgun ammunition were made illegal, the operation of a cartridge reloading device would also be illegal. Such a regulation would also take a number of sporting rifles out of service, because some handgun ammunition is common to revolvers and rifles. The aim of this crusade, of course, is to eliminate crime. Yet the lobby ignores reality: The states with the strictest gun controls have the rates. Part of highest gun-cricrimes is the answer to tough, mandatory sentences for persons convicted for using a gun any gun in the commission of a crime. But the become bleeding hearts when such a statute is mentioned. A citizen's constitutional right to bear arms could be taken from him with one stroke of a bureaucratic pen. gun-contr- ol gun-relat- ed -- gun-relat- ed gun-hate- rs AN APPEAL FOR YOUR HELP! A nation of over 200 million people does not have to surrender to alien conspirators. Nor does it have to permit the gradual destruction of our marvelous free enterprise system. Our government seems to be in the hands of second and third rate people. We can do better than that. Now How can we regain control of our nation again? Since the news media is strictly controlled, we still have a very effective media available to us which nobody can control or prevent us from using. Spreading important information from friend to friend, from house to house, can be very , successful if we will only use it.' Let's use this our media to full advantage. |
