Executive order..Bush & Rummy..Is this set up for Martial law?

Office of the Press Secretary
September 28, 2004

Executive Order Assignment of Functions Relating to Certain Appointments, Promotions, and Commissions in the Armed Forces





By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Assignment of Functions to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall perform, except with respect to the Coast Guard during any period in which it is not operating as a service in the Navy, the functions of the President under the following provisions of title 10, United States Code:

(a) subsection 1521(a);

(b) the first sentence of subsection 12203(a);

(c) the first sentence of subsection 14111(a), except with respect

to reports relating to the grades of brigadier general or above, or

rear admiral (lower half) or above; and

(d) subsection 14310(a), except with respect to removals relating to

a promotion list for grades of brigadier general or above, or rear

admiral (lower half) or above.

Sec. 2. Assignment of Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall perform, with respect to the Coast Guard during any period in which it is not operating as a service in the Navy, the functions assigned to the President by the following provisions of the United States Code:

(a) subsection 1521(a) of title 10;

(b) the first sentence of subsection 12203(a) of title 10;

(c) subsection 729(g) of title 14, except with respect to approval

of, or removal of a name from, a report relating to the grades of

rear admiral (lower half) or above; and

(d) subsection 738(a) of title 14, except with respect to removals

relating to a promotion list for grades of rear admiral (lower half)

or above.

Sec. 3. Reassignment of Functions Assigned. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security may reassign the functions assigned to them by this order to civilian officers, within their respective departments, who hold a position for which the President makes an appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security may not reassign the functions assigned by sections 1(b) and 2(b), respectively. The Secretary of Defense may not reassign the function assigned by section 1(c) of this order except to such an officer within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (as defined in section 131(b) of title 10).

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall take effect on

October 1, 2004.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit or otherwise

affect the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the

Armed Forces of the United States, or under the Constitution and laws

of the United States to nominate or to make or terminate

appointments.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity

by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,

entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 28, 2004

Sees himself unfit to be Commander in Chief

ever so often to see what else he has sneaked in on us but that one blew me away !

Is placed in the hands of the Secretary of Defense. Bush has effectively resigned as Commander in Chief

This is a tentative assessment, subject to revision based on a review of the codes referenced.

However, this appears to me to be the President's delegation of authority (or a re-delegation) to his subordinate officers, which is nothing particularly troubling in and of itself. All Presidents do this from time to time. In this particular case, it appears Shrub is simply clarifying which cabinet position holds authority over the Coast Guard, particularly with regard to the appointment and/or promotion of officers, under certain circumstances.

Legally, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" (Article II, sec. 1), which means all the executive power is vested in one individual. That individual cannot possibly execute all his duties by himself, especially in the modern era, thus the necessity of delegating that authority to other officers. We've come to know these people as secretaries who hold authority over various executive level departments, collectively known as the Cabinet. These people have no explicit Constitutional authority. The authority they do have is granted them by the President who has in turn been granted the authority to do this by laws passed by the legislature.

cabinet holds positions, true and Commander in chief over the Coast Guard I get, but does it mean Rumsfield has more power than Cheney?
If the constitution already has appointments and such in place, why the executive order? Homeland Security? Why was that brought into play under Rumsfield? Aren't they working on a NID? The order does not make sense to even write unless he is giving more power to Rumsfield and for what purpose, for he and Cheney to campaign? These people are appointed and not elected. It reads as though Rumsfield has more power.

The only Constitutional job of the VP while the President is living and/or not incapacitated is as President of the Senate. And, he only has a real function in that case if a tie vote requires him to cast a vote. So, yes, Rumsfeld has more authority than Cheney over the military. He always has. This order is simply a redefinition of what authority the Sec. of Defense and the Sec. of Homeland Security have with regard to the Coast Guard.

That said, Cheney has extra-legal power over a lot of things that VP's don't traditionally have. But, this order has nothing to do with any of that.

I'd bet if you searched an archive of EO's, you'd find that this one takes authority away from Sec. of Defense and gives it to the Sec. of Homeland Security. What this looks like is a clarification of what duties Homeland Security performs. Having authority of the Coast Guard, when it is acting as a guard to homeland coasts, would naturally fall under that department. Prior to the creation of that department, the Coast Guard was under the authority of the Sec. of Defense alone.

I heard Tweety say something like that the other night.

It had something to do with his position at the specific time of the attacks, Bush's location, etc.

And, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what kinds of powers Bush may have given him, legally or otherwise. Cheney has more authority, again legal and otherwise, than any VP in history as far as I can tell.

If and say if...Bush wants to impose martial law...Is he giving rumsfield the right to fire the Generals and such who may not agree with his policy of turning the country into a Police State and further an agenda of martial law of fascism..Say like Musilleni?

With regard to your original question and the potential of using this for the imposition of martial law, this kind of clarification of authority could be used in such a manner. If the President has a Defense Department and, now, a Homeland Security Department with senior officials who all support the President's agenda, which this one appears to have, this kind of thing functions to make certain the "right" people are in the right place at the right time and that the process of ensuring that takes place occurs with the utmost efficiency.

If this sort of thing actually happens, we will see a fierce and potentially large scale war within the military over its implementation, and that war could, in fact probably will, leak out into society as a whole. Quite frankly, I don't want to imagine it. End of the World as we Know It.

And, FWIW, it's not completely actual knowledge, although I appreciate your words. It's quick and easy access to various codes and discussions of how the executive branch works, which is something I've studied with regard to various historical periods.

and a big thanks to Vetwife for bringing this to our attention.

I fear this sort of conflict you two discuss here, firing ( or incarcerating as enemy combatants?) non-compliant generals.

I fear for the neo-cons, however. They will piss off the wrong freeper family and all hell will break loose. Because what the freepers most fear- the takeover of our freedoms and rights as Americans - will be right in front of their eyes.

Our troops will turn on their leaders. This has been bred into every warrior. I have no fear for the survival of our nation. But it will be bloody....

Here is a list of the codes being referenced, what they say, and thus what authority is being delegated :

Title 10

Section 1521(a):

The President may issue, or have issued, an appropriate
commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who, after
September 8, 1939 -
(1) was appointed to a commissioned grade but was unable to
accept the appointment because of death in line of duty;
(2) successfully completed the course at an officers' training
school and was recommended for appointment to a commissioned
grade by the commanding officer or officer in charge of the
school but was unable to accept the appointment because of death
in line of duty; or
(3) was officially recommended for appointment or promotion to
a commissioned grade but was unable to accept the promotion or
appointment because of death in line of duty.

Section 12203(a)(first sentence):

Appointments of reserve officers in commissioned grades above
lieutenant colonel and commander or below, except commissioned
warrant officer, shall be made by the President alone.

Title 14

Section 729(g):

The report of a selection board shall be submitted to the
Secretary for review and transmission to the President for
approval. When an officer recommended by a board for promotion is
not acceptable to the President, the President may remove the name
of that officer from the report of the board.

Section 738(a):

The President may, for cause, remove the name of any officer
from a list of selectees established under section 729 of this
title.

for removal that normally only a Commander in chief has? Is that correct?

But I'm betting Rumsfeld already had this authority. In the modern era, Presidents very rarely go over lists of selectees of officers for promotions or appointments. That job has been delegated to the Sec. of Defense/War to varying degrees since at least the Civil War. There were at times arguments between Presidents and those who had been delegated this authority, and the President has at times withdrawn the authority and taken it for himself, which is his right. But, in day to day business, he generally leaves this to others.

And, of course, the Sec. of Defense delegates the authority he has been granted as well.

As I said previously, this order is a clarification of this process with regard to the two departments between which the lines of authority had been clouded. One of the criticisms of the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security is that no one really knew what its job was. What authority did it have? This order defines one of those jobs.

BUT, all EO's can possibly be nullified in Congress, or challenged in court.

A dangerous democracry ! Its a republic I know but our right go away and we don't even know it sometimes.

There really isn't a conflict between saying we're a democracy and saying we're a republic. We're both. A republic is any government whose leaders are not selected by heredity. This includes Libya, the Soviet Union, and even Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It's really that vague.

A democracy is a any government in which the people call the shots. Yes, it's really that vague, too. Obviously the United States fits into both categories. We're a republic, but we use representative democracy to run the joint (at least on our good days). So we're a democracy too.

I'd argue that the democracy part is a whole lot more important than the republic part.

trying to figure out King George's last Executive order which seems to give Rummy presidential powers.