Posted on 01/19/2009 1:30:00 PM PST by rxsid
(b) Exceptions to Reciprocal Recognition. A gaining agency is not required to grant reciprocal recognition to a prior favorable fitness or suitability determination when:
(i) the new position requires a higher level of investigation than previously conducted for that individual;
(ii) an agency obtains new information that calls into question the individual’s fitness based on character or conduct; or
(iii) the individual’s investigative record shows conduct that is incompatible with the core duties of the new position.
If that’s an example of a Republican press release it is no wonder the press doesn’t like us!!
Here is a new lawsuit based on the executive order by orly taitz.
I heard about this too. Please folks, if somebody is a federal employee - and a PATRIOT - call Dr. Ritzke.
No, I’m not an insider. I have no information either, but I listened to the show too, and this is urgent.
.
I have been listening in to Plains Radio and the chat.
I don’t know what the heck is going on, but the representative from Oklahoma DID call in asking for a patriot who works for the federal govmt. (He has been on many times, so I know it was he)
He has to be aware that the fed offices are closed..
and also aware that he couldn’t get his bill passed before the inauguration. Must be something else. What, I haven’t a clue.
.
I still can't figure out what piece of information is needed that a federal employee can get that would stop the inauguration tomorrow. Even a port of entry from hades would not stop this from continuing from what I have seen.
Does the executive order give the federal employee the right to hand over the information? Where Obama has blocked any information maybe this gives them the power and almost a mandated you must do this order.
Very interesting.
The lawsuit, in part:
"9. The Order provides in pertinent part that, “It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment.”
10. The Order further provides in pertinent part: “Sec. 5. Reinvestigation of Individuals in Positions of Public Trust. Individuals in positions of public trust shall be subject to reinvestigation under standards (including but not limited to the frequency of such reinvestigation) as determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to ensure their suitability for continued employment."
They are suing, among others, "Michael W. Hager, in his capacity as Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management" whose office is directly mentioned in the E.O. Bush signed.
Bingo!!!!
Could this be of relevance as to documents Obama refuses to release? Divorce records can be accessed for the media's folly and ruin a 9 year old's life but Obama's BC cannot?
Any truth to Obama being married before Michelle? Also interesting Obama used the divorce papers to destroy his opponent in the Illinois senate election.
". . . the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners' argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States' pre-Tenth-Amendment "original powers," but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications."While this case dealt with term limits, there really is no distinguishing facts that would allow a different decision regarding presidential primaries. The Constitution does not provide for state enforcement of the "natural-born citizen" clause, so any enforcement will have to come from Congress.Nor can the Court agree with petitioners' related argument that (term limits are) a permissible exercise of state power under the Elections Clause, Art. I, 4, cl. 1, to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections." A necessary consequence of that argument is that Congress itself would have the power under the Elections Clause to "make or alter" a measure such as (term limits), a result that is unfathomable under Powell v. McCormick. Moreover, petitioners' broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers' view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office.
Section 1. Policy. (a) When agencies determine the fitness of individuals to perform work as employees in the excepted service or as contractor employees, prior favorable fitness or suitability determinations should be granted reciprocal recognition, to the extent practicable. . . . b) "Contractor employee" means an individual who performs work for or on behalf of any agency under a contract and who, in order to perform the work specified under the contract, will require access to space, information, information technology systems, staff, or other assets of the Federal Government. . . . c) "Excepted service" has the meaning provided in section 2103 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include those positions in any element of the intelligence community as defined in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, to the extent they are not otherwise subject to Office of Personnel Management appointing authorities.
Mike Ritz is not an Oklahoma Congressman but an OK Representative. Boren, Sullivan, Lucas, Fallin, and Cole are our Congressional Representatives.
That is correct.
Which is (apparently) why he's looking for 'federal' employee's to contact regarding this.
Yes Deep, I read it all. I am only trying to understand what the document may be that is requested. I am not a attorney. I still think there may be some legalese in there that Orly and others found in their favor.
The title of the E.O. is:
"Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust "
I'm reading that as 'Federal Contractor Employee' AND 'Individuals in Positions of Public Trust' which would include POTUS. Isn't POTUS in a position of public trust? I believe the answer would be yes. The E.O. doesn't appear to be 100% exclusive to Contractor employee's.
In addition, why would Dr. Orly Taitz submit this lawsuit with plaintiffs Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson. Are those people ignorant as to what the E.O. pertains to?
The Secretary of State certifies the candidates to the State Board. Secretary must certify Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates. In one lawsuit the secretary of state said they ASSUMED Obama had been vetted properly and they certified him because of that assumption. For the states to have done anything the time for that was before electoral votes. But also they have set themselves up for lawsuits for not properly vetting Obama.
I included a link to the EO, and it says nothing about elected officials. It covers contractors and the excepted service only. A court will not invent language that is not there, and as conservatives we don't want them to.
Public trust postions, as cited in the EO, ". . . involve policy making, major program responsibility, public safety and health, law enforcement duties, fiduciary responsibilities or other duties demanding a significant degree of public trust, and positions involving access to or operation or control of financial records, with a significant risk for causing damage or realizing personal gain." 5 CFR Part 731
While you would think this covers the President, again, the plain language of the EO doesn't cover the President.
In addition, why would Dr. Orly Taitz submit this lawsuit with plaintiffs Alan Keyes, PhD., Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson. Are those people ignorant as to what the E.O. pertains to?
Yes. As far as the lawyers go, they are grasping at straws; and Alan Keyes is nuts.
I would love to see OK or any other state pass a law requiring verification of citizenship, but as a matter of law I don’t think they will hold up in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.