Executive order 1933
Onedollarnohollar
Posts: 2,035 ✭✭✭✭
Imagine an order like this today
0
Onedollarnohollar
Posts: 2,035 ✭✭✭✭
Imagine an order like this today
Comments
Would the government take your John Crapper?
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>
Imagine an order like this today >>
Not long thereafter, Mr. T was sighted with his newly-formed attire.
<< <i>has there ever been an executive order that benefitted the U.S. citizens ? >>
Not likely. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I didn't double-check this because I'm preoccupied with finding a gun show where I can buy a Stinger missile without filling out any paperwork. Posse Comitatus anyone?
<< <i>Emancipation Proclamation..... feel free to quibble.
I didn't double-check this because I'm preoccupied with finding a gun show where I can buy a Stinger missile without filling out any paperwork. Posse Comitatus anyone? >>
Not quibbling, but it was the 13th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation.
Also, I don't know of any RATIONAL individual who would run for elected office on your above Stinger missile comment.
<< <i>
<< <i>Emancipation Proclamation..... feel free to quibble.
I didn't double-check this because I'm preoccupied with finding a gun show where I can buy a Stinger missile without filling out any paperwork. Posse Comitatus anyone? >>
Not quibbling, but it was the 13th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation.
Also, I don't know of any RATIONAL individual who would run for elected office on your above Stinger missile comment. >>
Quibbling back, the point to which I was responding had to do with "an executive order that benefited the US citizens". Spelling correction mine. While I am unclear as to whether or not the EP would even technically qualify as an executive order, I was attempting to make the point that some things the Executive Branch does in what might, by some, be considered a peremptory, even unconstitutional manner, might yet, in reality, have a positive effect upon US citizens.
As far as my Stinger missile comment goes, what's left? They've taken away my right to construct a suitcase nuke or biochemical warfare agent. It's a slippery slope, and we're already ......
Edited to add: Perhaps someone could google the phrase reductio ad absurdum
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Emancipation Proclamation..... feel free to quibble.
I didn't double-check this because I'm preoccupied with finding a gun show where I can buy a Stinger missile without filling out any paperwork. Posse Comitatus anyone? >>
Not quibbling, but it was the 13th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation.
Also, I don't know of any RATIONAL individual who would run for elected office on your above Stinger missile comment. >>
Quibbling back, the point to which I was responding had to do with "an executive order that benefited the US citizens". Spelling correction mine. While I am unclear as to whether or not the EP would even technically qualify as an executive order, I was attempting to make the point that some things the Executive Branch does in what might, by some, be considered a peremptory, even unconstitutional manner, might yet, in reality, have a positive effect upon US citizens.
As far as my Stinger missile comment goes, what's left? They've taken away my right to construct a suitcase nuke or biochemical warfare agent. It's a slippery slope, and we're already ...... >>
Not to nit-pic, but the Emancipation Proclaimation did no such thing. It only "emancipated" the slaves in the rebellion states, who viewed themselves as no longer being states within the United States.
Your other comments regarding rights to owning nukes and bio weapons are completely inane.
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order.
<< <i>Does not say world gold coins and I would argue that the US Government does not have the authority to collect coins minted by other countries >>
Another good reason to stack Canadian and Aussie bullion.
<< <i>
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order. >>
I hate to join the fray, but it depends on your perspective. The North generally still viewed them as citizens of the United States, while the South generally did not. I think CJ's larger point of a beneficial executive order is till generally valid though debates can be had about who exactly it benefits, was it technically an executive order, etc.
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Were the slaves that benefited from the Emancipation Proclamation considered US citizens? If not, then ebaybuyer's statement is still valid.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order. >>
Check out the phrase "rhetorical question"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order. >>
Check out the phrase "rhetorical question"
Yes, and I think you do not understand the meaning of "rhetorical" since you followed with "I look forward to your response."
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order. >>
Check out the phrase "rhetorical question"
Yes, and I think you do not understand the meaning of "rhetorical" since you followed with "I look forward to your response." >>
Oh, I know what it means. That's why your response is so amusing.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Does my mischaracterization of the EP invalidate my point about possible benefit from "governmental intervention" ?
BTW, this is a rhetorical question. I look forward to your response
Well, let's see...
It would seem comparable to the president of the US issuing a law that only affected the citizens of a foreign country. So yeah, I would say that that would "invalidate" your point regarding the costs/benefits of the use of executive order. >>
Check out the phrase "rhetorical question"
Yes, and I think you do not understand the meaning of "rhetorical" since you followed with "I look forward to your response." >>
Oh, I know what it means. That's why your response is so amusing.
Oh, I know what it means. That's why your response is so amusing.
Kindly let me in on your amusement because I'm very confused. Were you really posing a rhetorical question or were you really looking forward to my response? It can't be both because they are two exclusive things. So please, let me know what you found so amusing? (insert really cool emoticon because it's really awesome, or something)
<< <i>I can't, I just can't, I just can't go on.... The more a joke is explained, the less funny it becomes.
You haven't explained a single thing. All of your messages have been non sequiturs.
Let me know when you figure something out and are able to rationally communicate it.
Truly Yours.
<< <i>has there ever been an executive order that benefitted the U.S. citizens ? >>
Here's one us old farts benefitted from:
Executive Order 11074
Establishing the President's Council on Physical Fitness
Signed: January 8, 1963
Federal Register page and date: 28 FR 259; January 10, 1963
Amends: EO 10830, July 24, 1959
Revokes: EO 10673, July 16, 1956; EO 10772, June 30, 1958; EO 10931, March 29, 1961
Revoked by: EO 11398, March 4, 1968
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The nice thing about the executive order was that coins with noted collector value were exempt in Executive Order 6102. It states in Section 2 Subsection B, which are the exemptions, "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." Meaning coins that did have a value above face were totally exempt from this law. Sadly, I assume many upon many non-collectors didn't take time to look their coins up therefore giving up a bunch of gold coin that would be considered "collectible". >>
I wonder how many gold coins were actually turned in? I believe that everyone was able to keep 5 coins in addition to the coins with collector value. Did the public have a lot of gold coins?