Anybody with info on these? Thanks, Rusty

-- Rusty (iam@work.com), March 13, 1999

Answers

Jack Van Impe discussed it tonight on his show. Essentially said that Willie could suspend elections under provisions of PPD25. Incidentially, Van Impe has a good website with lots of Y2K info:

http://www.jvim.com/cgi-bin/update.cgi

-- No No (nono@nogo.com), March 13, 1999.

A) The Constitutional provisions for elections apply to Congress and the states only. The Executive Branch has no authority over the holding of elections.

Since any presidential order or directive derives its authority from the Constitutional powers granted to the Presidency, no presidential order or directive can amend, bypass, cancel, delete, erase, or otherwise modify anything in the Constitution, such as provisions for elections.

Jack Van Impe, if he indeed stated that Clinton could suspend elections, has merely demonstrated his gullibility and ignorance of basic Constitutional provisions. (That is, assuming he actually believes that Clinton could suspend elections when he said so.)

B) Does Van Impe provide any copy of, or link to, the actual text of "PPD 25"? (In a brief visit to his site a few days ago I couldn't find any.) If not, can anyone else provide one?

C) Note that there are other absurd stories about Executive Orders being circulated. I recommend that one check the actual EO text before deciding whether to believe any of such stories.

Here a link: (BTW, notice how many of the anti-Clinton stories fail to provide the reader with a link at which s/he can verify the accuracy of the story!) Sear ch Executive Orders at http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/search/executive-orders.html -- One can simply enter the EO number in the search field, or any key words from the title or text.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 20, 1999.

oh, yeah, a couple more things --

D) Here's another link to information about EOs. It doesn't have the texts, but has the legal history of the ones issued by Kennedy and later presidents. Note that EOs 10995 and 10997-11002, prominently featured in many anti-Clinton stories, were actually revoked by Nixon in 1969-1970, and thus have not been in force for a quarter-century, but the Clinton-attackers write about them as though they were still active. Says something about the authors' credibility, doesn't it? Federal Register - List of Executive Orders at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo.html

E) I've given up on complaining about the existence of off-topic threads in this forum, but will all you off-topic posters please at least have the courtesy to indicate in your thread's title that it is off-topic? Something like "Off-topic: ---" or "OT: ---"?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), March 20, 1999.