Talk:Senate Report 93-549

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Congress [hide](Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

NPOV[edit]

I am quite concerned about the neutrality, or the lack thereof, in this article. It seems to be written as an alarmist conspiracy-theory piece saying that the US is permanently under martial law and such. Using boldfaced sections to state that the US . Never mind that this entire article is about a 1973 Senate report, reporting on a 1970 declaration of Emergency, which was made obsolete by the 1976 National Emergencies Act which completely changed the legal status of a state of emergency from the one described in this report.

It seems like this article was written with the agenda of trying to use this reports staggering description of what a State of Emergency legally entails to imply that post-1976 states of emergency are just as dire. A substantial rewrite to provide a more neutral and balanced perspective on this subject would be well advised. --Wingsandsword (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It needs to be rewritten from NPOV. It is a very interesting article, although it contains many statements, declarations, and allegations that do not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.222.144 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

--- I did my best to update recently from a NPOV, but it's really tough to not be accurate, and in doing so, the blatant evidence reveals a most unwelcome result: the emergency is still in full force (just as it was announced in 1973). How could this possibly be? I could ask for you to take me at my word when I say I have spent countless hours in the mid to late 90's researching this very subject, painstakingly in the law library of my town hall. I could also ask you to believe me when I say that I never found a single law or reference which claimed to rescind these war powers. I would rather ask that all the information be researched diligently, and common sense applied. You should be able to come to the same conclusion without my opinion. I have carefully explained this matter, and I referenced each step. If there are any questions, please feel free to ask anywhere on this talk page. Brokor (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I rewrote this article for three reasons: The previous article failed to explain who wrote the report and why. The previous article failed to mention that it was a report from 1973 (implying it was a current report). The previous article implied that Bush was using this report to gain unconstitutional powers. So, this is an encyclopedia. If you can't say who wrote a report and why they wrote it, you don't need to write an article about the report. The fact that it is a report from 1973 is rather important. Failing to mention that is not a mistake - it is obviously a purposeful misdirection. Finally, no Presdient can use a Senate Report to gain powers. Congress has to grant powers to the President. Just implying that a Senate report can grant Presidential powers shows that the original author knows absolutely nothing about the Consitution. --Kainaw (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--- Please don't do that again. If you delete my information, you had better have a better reason for doing so. All of the data is now backed by clear citations and referenced. There are zero assumptions and certainly no conspiracy theories. By the way, United States Code is still standing law. Thank you in advance. Brokor (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs more information to understand this topic[edit]

Added "insufficient context" template. "For those unfamiliar with the subject matter", it's difficult to understand what this article is talking about. Please add more information to this article as necessary. -- 201.50.254.243 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "difficult to understand"? I don't see any "subject matter" that requires familiarity in the article. --Kainaw (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How's this version now? 68.39.174.238 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More Information Added (July, 2015)[edit]

I have two decades experience researching this topic, and have information to verify the legitimacy. I have comprised a summation on my community site for easy access, I hope this is fine for you. Download information: https://www.survivalmonkey.com/resources/emergency-war-powers-explained.197/ This is the link to the entire walk-through, citing every reference (it is rather lengthy: https://www.survivalmonkey.com/threads/fdr-and-emergency-war-powers-explained.36189/

I will also be monitoring the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokor (talkcontribs) 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

From the page (edited by original author): "The debate to end long-running states of National Emergency was ended in 1976 with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651), which limits any such declared emergencies to two years."
All of my edits clearly explain, step-by-step how the statement above is not true. It is still erroneously referenced to date that the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) completely rescinds the powers conferred to the President in 1975. In fact, citing from the very text below, we can see that the empowering Act itself was clearly not included:
"SEC.502.(a)The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law. The powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder: (1)Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95A;50 U.S.C. App. 5(b));"
This means the powers conferred to the President pursuant to standing law and to current day under Title 12, U.S.C. are still in effect, and the Emergency Powers since the Banking Holiday of March, 1933 are still in force, just as they were in 1973 when the Senate Report 93-549 illustrates. Additionally, the fact that the private banks operate and conduct business is proof the Emergency still exists, since it is the Bank Holiday of March 6, 1933 which grants the authorization for them to do so. See "Bank Holiday of March 6, 1933" [3]
Additionally - I recently updated the page again and ask that it not be deleted without proper citation (proof). Claiming that "Conspiracy theorists say that George Bush is using powers..." is ridiculous and is only an assertion. Also, the claim that these war powers have been rescinded has been clarified. I left room at the bottom for anybody to clearly cite any law which they believe may rescind the war powers (although none exist). Brokor (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The more I reflect on this, I tend to look at this specific Emergency (March 6, 1933) as mostly a banking related issue and less of a dictatorial regime. Allow me to explain, briefly. First, I like to look at this from the beginning. In the early 1900's and the time leading up to the period, talk was always about "breaking the hold of the Money Trust". If we know anything about the foundations of the Federal Reserve Act (1913) and how it was conceived and drafted, and especially by whom -we shouldn't be surprised to find out the Federal Reserve Board was instrumental in drafting this entire amendment to the Trading With the Enemy Act and language for FDR's Proclamations.

But, is any of this even real? I guess it's "conspiracy theory" time. Jekyll Island is a real island off the coast of Georgia, and it was back in 1910, the Federal Reserve banking system (United States) was originally conceived at a highly secret meeting that took place there. What was it these people wanted to hide? In 1910, Jekyll Island was privately owned by a small group of millionaires and they had an elaborate social club which still exists today. It all began in November, when Senator Nelson Aldrich sent for a rail car. The well-known men he asked to attend came in disguise so as they would not be noticed. They were told to use first names only, and two of the men used code names so the servants on the train would not leak their arrival to the press. Once at the island, the men got to work. For the next nine days, these men hammered out what would become the Federal Reserve System. Outwardly, the nation at the time was concerned with the banking industry, and some believed it was time for "banking reform", including the National Monetary Commission, despite the few who opposed it. Some were concerned with the aggregation of power in the hands of New York banks and their Wall Street allies. This powerful alliance is what was called the money trust, which was a very popular term in the newspapers at the time. Some politicians were even fast-tracked to office with promises to "break the money trust", including former President Wilson. The first person at the meeting was Nelson W. Aldrich. He was a business associate of J.P. Morgan, and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather to Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the 41st Vice President of The United States. The second, Frank A. Vanderlip was also there. He was a banker, and Assistant Secretary to the Treasury as well as President of National City Bank, the largest and most powerful in the country. Several other J.P Morgan banking giants and others also attended: Henry Davison, Charles Norton, Benjamin Strong, and Paul Warburg. [1]

It is notable to also mention that Warburg was one of the most wealthy men in the world, and all the men together are estimated to have possessed 1/4 of all the wealth of the world at the time. Now, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out why any of this happened, nor how the banking system we still have in place today, was conceived.

Skip ahead to the year 1933, with Franklin D. Roosevelt winning the election for Presidency and his relationship with Edward M. House. How about his relationship with the Federal Reserve and banking in general? I won't even get started on Stalin.
This is all conspiracy theory to a lot of people, but if I could clearly explain it all, just like I did with Senate Report 93-549, I am willing to bet it wouldn't throw up as many red flags as some would expect. Listen, I am adding all of this to the TALK PAGE because I firmly believe it is relevant but also unsavory. I know how many people frown upon conjecture, but I know I can deliver absolute proof. The thing is, even with absolute proof, along comes a spider in denial...and the whole entry gets ruined. I hope you found this portion entertaining, because I certainly would expect, with time, that more people will eventually come around. The key to understanding the Emergency War Powers of 1933 and this Senate Report, is to simply follow the money trail.
Brokor (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stylistic gnomery[edit]

Irrespective of content-related issues, formatting/MOS idiosyncracies with this article are considerable. I will chip away at these a little at a time. Please take it in good faith that I'm not childishly ignoring substantive work; I'm just coding away in a blissful Aspie/OCD lint-picking pre-bedtime wonderland, and substance is another review for another neurometabolic state.Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. Jump up ^ "Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin". Wikipedia. G. Edward Griffin. Retrieved 11 July 2015.