One of Bush*'s first acts as President was to use an Executive Order overturning an

[Bandit]

ACT of Congress dealing with Presidential Papers. It was called the Presidential Papers Act or something very similar and it stated after a President had been out of Office for eight years their Presidential Papers were to be made public. There was a stipulation that it could extend to twelve years but no more. Bush* used an Executive Order to get around that Act of Congress so neither his father's or Reagan's papers would ever be made public. I am wondering if that Executive Order is still in effect. Can those papers now be released and will they?

[grasswire]

1. good article from 2001

Bush's executive order was in conflict with an act of Congress passed to keep Nixon from hiding his papers.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/EDITORIAL-An-Executive-Order-Hiding-2857661.php

[Loudly]

2. Wikipedia says PBO reversed that EO of GWB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

[Xipe Totec]

5. 2 Many TLAs nt

[grasswire]

3. considering it was an executive order...

.....couldn't Obama just issue an order cancelling it? I know he won't, but couldn't he?

[Xipe Totec]

4. On January 21, 2009, Executive Order 13233 was revoked by executive order of President Barack Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

[grasswire]

8. GOOD!

So when will we see the released papers?

I'm surprised, actually. Obama's EO doesn't mesh with the "look forward, not backward" tone of his approach to BFEE crimes.

[msanthrope]

6. This is some serious ODS....PBO issued 13489 on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE. nt

[11 Bravo]

7. Having been presented with evidence that you are wrong, can you now overcome your reflexive ...

need to shit on this President and admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

[grasswire]

10. strong talk there, sonny

I was wrong. I am surprised because he has exhibited no willingness to "look backward" at crimes committed by his predecessor's administration.

[grasswire]

11. and no

I will not stop criticism of presidential actions that I believe are unconstitutional or wrong. That is my obligation as an American citizen. Especially since I voted for him twice.

[grasswire]

12. incidentally, it's your responsibility, too.

To be critical of presidential actions that are unconstitutional or harmful to the American people. It's your obligation, despite politics or partisanship.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. wow! THREE replies to the poster.

I wish people would quit reflexively blaming Obama before doing their research. But I guess blaming Obama for all of our ills is just TOO MUCH FUN!

[11 Bravo]

18. I've criticized the President, and will no doubt do so again, but only for events ...

that have actually occurred. My objection is with those who piss and moan about things they think he might do, or in your case, those who make a flat-out false statement about the President's actions ... sonny.

[bluestateguy]

9. At the time people thought the EO was to protect his old man's papers

which were due to start being released in 2001. Yes, some papers have to stay secret for many years due to national security, but the law was meant to prevent presidents, their families and their inner circle from hiding papers that were merely embarrassing.

[former9thward]

13. An Executive Order can't overturn an act of Congress.

Never has and under our present Constitution never will.

[Bandit]

14. It certainly managed to do so for the eight years Bush* was in Office.

and took another Presidential Order to undo it...

[former9thward]

15. No it didn't.

You have the facts and law wrong. A EO can certainly be overturned by a subsequent EO. Happens every administration change.

[Bandit]

16. In the first place Bush* did indeed issue such an executive order

Nobody contested it for the entire eight years he was in Office. Obama immediately upon taking office issued his own Executive Order overturning Bush*'s. So for the entire eight years of the Bush*/Cheney Administration the Executive Order was in effect and the Presidential Papers of neither his father nor Reagan were released and I don't believe to this day they have been. Do you refute that fact?

[former9thward]

19. I have no idea whether any papers have been released.

I am not in that business. Why wouldn't anyone challenge it for 8 years if the law is what you describe? Please don't say people were afraid. There are groups and people that challenge almost anything that happens. There would have been plenty of media outlets that would have.

Reagan's papers were released in 1994. Ronald Reagan's library had five FOIA requests the first day of access in 1994. Bill Clinton's presidential library got 10 when its archives became available in 2006.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/01/20/Millions-of-pages-of-Bush-archives-now-available-to-public/UPI-56801390247151/#ixzz2qyuEH53G