On June 3, President Barack Obama will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

After seeing that all it took was an EO to lock up hundreds of thousands of American citizens in internment camps
Click to expand...
I must have missed it. Exactly when did that happen?
Click to expand...

See:
Japanese Internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.
 
I don't know if it will happen or not, but I will bet that Obama will push for it and he will sign it by executive order..........
 
mehavey said:
Tom Servo said:
vaeevictiss said:
After seeing that all it took was an EO to lock up hundreds of thousands of American citizens in internment camps
Click to expand...
I must have missed it. Exactly when did that happen?
Click to expand...

See:
Japanese Internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.
Click to expand...
Wrong, incomplete information and misleading.

The internment of the Japanese was not, as claimed by vaeevictiss, accomplished solely by FDR's executive order. The executive order was implementing several statutes enacted by Congress. As we've discussed a number of times on this board, an executive order must be supported by one or more underlying statutes.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mehavey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaeevictiss
After seeing that all it took was an EO to lock up hundreds of thousands of American citizens in internment camps

I must have missed it. Exactly when did that happen?

See:
Japanese Internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.

Wrong, incomplete information and misleading.

The internment of the Japanese was not, as claimed by vaeevictiss, accomplished solely by FDR's executive order. The executive order was implementing several statutes enacted by Congress. As we've discussed a number of times on this board, an executive order must be supported by one or more underlying statutes.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Roosevelt's authority to intern citizens of Japanese descent was granted by the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 which is the only one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts which is still in effect.
 
[quote='Bloomsberg article above"]As the U.S. point person on the treaty, Countryman has said the agreement would reduce worldwide violence by curbing black-market arms sales.[/quote]


What a rediculous statement. Has making something illegal (or more illegal) ever reduced that activity? There is certainly emperical data to suggest that it may make it worse...i.e. Prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.
 
Webleymkv said:
IIRC, Roosevelt's authority to intern citizens of Japanese descent was granted by the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 which is the only one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts which is still in effect.
Click to expand...
Actually, the executive order itself cites:
...Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104)...
Click to expand...

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), sustaining the constitutionality of the internment order noted that the defendant was charged with violating:
....an Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173, 18 U.S.C.A. § 97a...
Click to expand...

18 USC 97a read:
....whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor...
Click to expand...

But we're wandering off topic. The limited scope of executive orders has been fully discussed in the past, and there's no reason to rehash all that here now.
 
And... notwithstanding other opinions previously expressed... I am not sanguine
about this Administration towing to the letter/spirit of established & tested law, and
to not immediately begin testing the limits of Executive Orders and Demand Letters.

NOR...

...am I sanguine as to the courts upholding challenges to those actions w/o long and
protracted battles, during which great damage is done:

http://www.wral.com/court-backs-border-state-gun-sale-reporting-rule/12502871/
 
Looks like they bowed out of the photo op. Appears as though they had a Clintonian moment and realized that gun control is still pretty unpopular in the country with the most guns in the world.

“I suspect they probably took a decision that, politically, it made sense not to completely alienate people in Congress on something that, in their opinion, doesn’t matter when they sign it as long as they sign it,” said Adotei Akwei, Amnesty International USA’s managing director for government relations.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...igning-ceremony-un-arms-treaty/#ixzz2VG3oKZUi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

China, Russia and most other countries have no interest in the document:

http://unoda_web.s3.amazonaws.com/w...ies-that-have-signed-the-ATT-as-of-3-June.pdf

Here is the text of the Treaty:

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410 12-01 PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

Article V calls for the establishment of a "National Control List" and then providing this list to the UN who will then provide it to other nations.

Who thinks that will fly?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top