Q Anon: 10/03/18 Trust Trump's Plan

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/watch-obama-heavy-drinking-drug-problem/?utm_source=star&utm_medium=twitter

WATCH: Obama Admits To Heavy Drinking, Drug Problems As An ‘Adolescent’

KEK has a long mustache.

Have had opportunity this morning to re-read Reagan’s EO on Federalism.
Reproducing here because...it’s THAT GOOD!
+++++++++++++++++++++

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Order:

(a) “Policies that have federalism implications” refers to regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

(b) “State” or “States” refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:

(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.

(b) The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.

(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

(e) In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. In Thomas Jefferson’s words, the States are “the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.”

(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.

(g) Acts of the national government-whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature—that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.

(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of—and should encourage opportunities for—individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.

(i) In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policy-making Criteria. In addition to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:

(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Executive departments and agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the Policy-making discretion of the States, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. To the extent practicable, the States should be consulted before any such action is implemented. Executive Order No. 12372 (”Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”) remains in effect for the programs and activities to which it is applicable.

(b) Federal action limiting the Policy-making discretion of the States should be taken only where constitutional authority for the action is clear and certain and the national activity is necessitated by the presence of a problem of national scope. For the purposes of this Order:

(1) It is important to recognize the distinction between problems of national scope (which may justify Federal action) and problems that are merely common to the States (which will not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, can effectively deal with them).

(2) Constitutional authority for Federal action is clear and certain only when authority for the action may be found in a specific provision of the Constitution, there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting Federal action, and the action does not encroach upon authority reserved to the States.

(c) With respect to national policies administered by the States, the national government should grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible. Intrusive, Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable.

(d) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall:

(1) Encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives and to work with appropriate officials in other States.

(2) Refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from establishing uniform, national standards for programs and, when possible, defer to the States to establish standards.

(3) When national standards are required, consult with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in developing those standards.

Sec. 4. Special Requirements for Preemption. (a) To the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.

(b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), Executive departments and agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rule-making only when the statute expressly authorizes issuance of pre-emptive regulations or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended to delegate to the department or agency the authority to issue regulations preempting State law.

(c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.

(d) As soon as an Executive department or agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the department or agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in an effort to avoid such a conflict.

(e) When an Executive department or agency proposes to act through adjudication or rule-making to preempt State law, the department or agency shall provide all affected States notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.

Sec. 5. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals. Executive departments and agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would:

(a) Directly regulate the States in ways that would interfere with functions essential to the States’ separate and independent existence or operate to directly displace the States’ freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions;

(b) Attach to Federal grants conditions that are not directly related to the purpose of the grant; or

(c) Preempt State law, unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, and unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism Policy-making criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met.

Sec. 6. Agency Implementation.
(a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this Order.

(b) In addition to whatever other actions the designated official may take to ensure implementation of this Order, the designated official shall determine which proposed policies have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. With respect to each such policy for which an affirmative determination is made, a Federalism Assessment, as described in subsection (c) of this section, shall be prepared. The department or agency head shall consider any such Assessment in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing the policy.

(c) Each Federalism Assessment shall accompany any submission concerning the policy that is made to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 or OMB Circular No. A19, and shall:

(1) Contain the designated official’s certification that the policy has been assessed in light of the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(2) Identify any provision or element of the policy that is inconsistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(3) Identify the extent to which the policy imposes additional costs or burdens on the States, including the likely source of funding for the States and the ability of the States to fulfill the purposes of the policy; and

(4) Identify the extent to which the policy would affect the States’ ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions, or other aspects of State sovereignty.

Sec. 7. Government-wide Federalism Coordination and Review.
(a) In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order.

(b) In submissions to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 and OMB Circular No. A19, Executive departments and agencies shall identify proposed regulatory and statutory provisions that have significant federalism implications and shall address any substantial federalism concerns. Where the departments or agencies deem it appropriate, substantial federalism concerns should also be addressed in notices of proposed rulemaking and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress.

Sec. 8. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
October 26, 1987.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 4:33 p.m., October 28, 1987]

I agree that it was a test and a troll.

But the issue I have is that *IF* at some future time it is used in a genuine emergency, it would be nice to be able to keep the message.

I didn’t keep a copy, nor did I want to. Nor was I able to, AFAIK. But in a real emergency, if the message contained important info, I’d want to keep it.

Just because your enemy builds a boat, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t sail in it if you need to go somewhere.

VILE from what is skimmed. Does the death penalty apply in UT?

not everything is worth learning. ;-)

Save some brain space for useful facts.

FWIW..press conference coming up at 9:30 am. www.justice.gov/live

Hey, if I can’t text GEOTUS back from that warning, I don’t want to keep it.
If needed? he’ll be able to get ahold of me!

Wasn’t to get into the next Trump rally and show your support?
Hat gear: “17”
T-shirt: 4+10+20+17 = MAGA

Dude!

Firing squad!

I gotta admit, in my head I was scoffing. (I know how to use my iPhone, thank you very much.)

But I tried it anyway. Alert is still there.

Kudos, patriot!

I learn so much from fellow FReeQs every day.

now we are doing James Cagney ? - George M Cohan ?

I thought we were doing blazing saddles until we get “Q”d ?

FWIW..press conference coming up at 9:30 am. www.justice.gov/live

Thanks, opened up that link.

Black now at 9:29.

death penalty apply in UT

Why yes, yes it does! And Utah is the only state that has put death by firing squad back in play. Due to the shortage of the deadly drug cocktail that is used for most deaths (gee..wonder how that happened) now Death Row inmates have a choice.

Not sure about death penalty in Utah.

Isn’t that the state that reinstated firing squads? Someplace did that, IIRC.

Maybe Dimwitty is really the Congressional staffer who was just charged with doxxing the GOP Senators. Nah! He would probably be too uneducated to know who the original Dinwiddie was.

Twitter was going nuts last night. Q followers were saying something big was happening.

Charcoal briquets have additional chemicals that you don’t want to drink.

At the least Kavanaugh will hopefully understand how these some parts of the law enforcement groups/DNC weaponize lies and smears against political opponents. It would be glorious if these tactics awoke many besides us deplorables to see what is done behind the curtains.

That’s got to be it, I forgot about her.

FWIW..press conference coming up at 9:30 am. www.justice.gov/live

It's live now.

Indictment of 7 Russian Military Operatives?