Talk:Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency

Rewrite
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)

--- 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
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)

NPOV
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)

More Information Added (July, 2015)
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 (talk • contribs) 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.

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 enlightening, 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)


 * The statute you cite as a continuation of the 1933 emergency is a ratification by Congress of Roosevelt's actions upon taking office. It resolved political questions as to whether Roosevelt had the authority to do what he did (closing the banks, freezing gold, etc.). It certainly did not place the emergency beyond the ability of Congress to de-authorize in the future, which it indeed did effective 1978. If you can present a post-1978 court ruling which says that the 1933 emergency remains in effect, I would be interested in that.


 * In any case, this article is about the report and what reliable sources directly said about the report. It cannot become a repository for original research, arguments, "strange" stories, etc. I don't have to "prove" anything to remove such material, nor will your "proof" of anything make it any more topical.50.185.134.48 (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Brokor: It appears that much of what you had posted was the result of research you yourself have done over the years. That's not generally appropriate in Wikipedia, since you are an editor in Wikipedia now. Instead, look for what third party sources have written about the subject. Famspear (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

-Thank you both for commenting. I have fully referenced the information, including current law (U.S.C.) and Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.(1990), and briefly explained how every portion of the editing I contributed is relevant. I did not make claims of any kind about tyranny and the abuse of power granted to the Executive Branch, and I hope we can all agree on the very fact that the emergency in question is what grants the very same banks in operation now the authority to conduct banking business, just as it was enacted in 1933. By default, the truth is self-evident and needs no further sources, modern or otherwise. Brokor (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Brokor: It appears that you're missing the point. What you've done is to perform a lot of Original Research, and you've added your own conclusions and commentaries. Those are YOUR interpretations of the significance of the material. As a Wikipedia editor, you cannot properly do that. And general statements here in the talk page to the effect that "the truth is self-evident and needs no further sources" really don't address the problem.


 * Your job as an editor is NOT to take statement A from Source A and Statement B from Source B and come to your own conclusion C -- no matter how "self-evident" the "truth" of your conclusion seems to be.


 * Please review the Wikipedia rules on No Original Research at WP:NOR. Take each one of your conclusions in the article and look for someone ELSE who has reached those conclusions. Famspear (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Then permit me to remove every portion you claim are MY OWN CONCLUSIONS, and I shall keep the data intact which pertains to the subject. Simply reverting to a near blank page does nothing to describe the emergency nor does it assist anybody in understanding the matter. I am only trying to clarify myths and biased perceptions about how this senate report is only commonly referred to by "conspiracy theorists". Give me ten minutes, please. Brokor (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of your commentary:


 * "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 which belong to the Federal Reserve actually 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."

As a Wikipedia editor, you simply cannot quote materials and then reach your own conclusion, by explaining that "this means..... ".etc., when the source material does itself does not contain that conclusion. And, the idea that the fact that private banks "which belong to the Federal Reserve" are operating is somehow "proof" that "the Emergency still exists" is not stated anywhere in the sources you cited. You're just reaching your own conclusions and inserting them into the article. The fact that your conclusions may be correct is irrelevant. You, as a Wikipedia editor, cannot properly do this. Find someone ELSE who has stated that conclusion and cite that source. The source has to be reliable, etc. Famspear (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another example:


 * "It is important to note, and to avoid confusion, that these are not separate and isolated events, but rather a condensing of several actions under the emergency of war powers in the time of a perceived crisis. To clarify, the Presidential Proclamation announced the emergency and invoked the war powers, and Congress enacted legislation for the emergency and empowered the Executive Branch with wartime abilities (namely the President and Secretary of Treasury) in a pivotal fashion. Finally, the current law to date verifies all of this is accurate."

Look at the last sentence, which illustrates the problem. You're claiming that "current law to date verifies of this is accurate." It it obvious that you are stating your own conclusion, based on your own original research. That's a no-no in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is yet another:


 * "At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the united States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. we can see that the phrase....."

This sounds like a professor lecturing to a class. Yet, these are YOUR thoughts, not the thoughts of a reliable, previously published third party source. Essentially, you are using the Wikipedia article as a way to publish your own conclusions about the meaning of all this material. That's is prohibited Original Research. Famspear (talk)

Here is yet another passage:


 * "This means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719), or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed by Congress. Essentially, this places dictatorial control into the hands of the President, but we must not forget the purpose ......"

See the language? "This means...." "Essentially, this places dictatorial control....." "......we must not forget......" You are clearly writing your own conclusions, based on your own original research.

Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to do this. Famspear (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more examples:


 * "There should not be confusion..... The first time we see this language..... Technically, it was earlier ......but that is covered below ....................The interesting part to pay special attention to is..... so it does make sense....."

The entire paragraph from which that material comes is an expression of your own conclusions -- conclusions not stated in the source material. Again, you are trying to use Wikipedia to publish your own original research. Famspear (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Thank you, Famspear. WIll edit promptly.Brokor (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--I ask that you continue to work with me, Famspear instead of reverting the page. I feel we can come to an accord, and I value your insight. I have done considerable research, but I do not wish to overstep here. I do wish to preserve as much historical fact (and enough insight so as not to confuse) as possible. I believe we can work this out. Any further suggestions, feel free to let it be known. Brokor (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the idea. Everyone works together. Please note that when you add material to an article in Wikipedia, it is YOUR job to justify the material when other editors remove it. If you re-add the material to the article without first persuading other editors that the material should be there, you might be blocked from editing (not by me, but by an administrator).


 * I gotta get to bed..... see ya later...... Famspear (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--You are a good man, Famspear. I must admit, it's better than it was without your help. Together, I look forward to assisting you in making the page be as helpful, truthful, non-biased and informative as possible. Believe me when I say, this particular case is so very important that we must not fail to include as much pertinent data as possible -not only for the sake of proper historical accounting, but in the hopes to eliminate unnecessary contesting of the information by those who would very much like to use it as a means to claim the President is a dictator. Now, I do enjoy my fair share of conspiracies, and I do possess the knowledge to make most people have nightmares, but this page and this Wiki is NOT the place for me to announce it. Again, I thank you for your input. I will make one more final edit tonight, then off to bed as well. I will check this daily for updates and continue to work with you. Brokor (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When it comes to inserting your own novel legal theories into Wikipedia, nobody is obligated to meet you halfway. If the interpretation does not come out of court rulings or published legal scholarship, it does not belong here. So sorry. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

-- Mr. Anonymous -Not a single word I added was a "theory", and I fully intend to cite every word according to law referenced if it pleases you. In fact, every "interpretation" is a quote or clearly illustrated in the referenced material. My original edit was not suitable, I agree. That problem has been solved, best I can tell, unless you would like to point out specifics. Finally, I do not take kindly to those who wish to subvert the truth and make bold-faced claims about "conspiracy theories". Remember, the very same rules apply to you as well. Now, Famspear has worked with me, in gentlemanly fashion to build this reference so that it may educate. I have learned a great deal in my short time here, and wish to continue to work with those who don't mind teamwork and collaboration. I thank you for your input. Brokor (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your "referenced material" is the text of various statutes and executive documents, from which you then synthesize legal conclusions about the present day. As you know, the report was written in the 1970s, prior to the NEA's passage. See for examples of scholarship stating that the NEA acted to terminate the 1933 emergency. Do you believe otherwise? Then you will have to present published scholarship endorsing that view, not argument.


 * As for the extensive text focusing on the events of 1933, that's not particularly relevant to a senate report written decades later, even if your claims about it were true. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Mr. Anonymous -The National Emergencies Act (PL 94-412) explicitly leaves out the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 as amended, which is the Presidential Procl. I referenced and the empowering portion is Congress's approval USCA Title 12, Section 95(b) -all of this is clearly explained. Quoting from the National Emergencies Act: ""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));""

[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title50a-node2-node4-section5&num=0&edition=prelim 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)] "From Title 50-AppendixTRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917ACT OCT. 6, 1917, CH. 106, 40 STAT. 411"

Specifics: "§5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(a) The President, if he shall find it compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war, may, by proclamation, suspend the provisions of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix] so far as they apply to an ally of enemy, and he may revoke or renew such suspension from time to time; and the President may grant licenses, special or general, temporary or otherwise, and for such period of time and containing such provisions and conditions as he shall prescribe, to any person or class of persons to do business as provided in subsection (a) of section four hereof [section 4(a) of this Appendix], and to perform any act made unlawful without such license in section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix], and to file and prosecute applications under subsection (b) of section ten hereof [section 10(b) of this Appendix]; and he may revoke or renew such licenses from time to time, if he shall be of opinion that such grant or revocation or renewal shall be compatible with the safety of the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war; and he may make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Act [said sections]; and the President may exercise any power or authority conferred by this Act [said sections] through such officer or officers as he shall direct.

If the President shall have reasonable cause to believe that any act is about to be performed in violation of section three hereof [section 3 of this Appendix] he shall have authority to order the postponement of the performance of such act for a period not exceeding ninety days, pending investigation of the facts by him.

(b)(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this subdivision or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

(3) As used in this subdivision the term "United States" means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term "person" means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.

(4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [section 2404 of this Appendix], or under section 6 of that Act [section 2405 of this Appendix] to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code.

(Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 106, §5, 40 Stat. 415; Sept. 24, 1918, ch. 176, §5, 40 Stat. 966; Mar. 9, 1933, ch. 1, §2, 48 Stat. 1; May 7, 1940, ch. 185, §1, 54 Stat. 179; Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, §301, 55 Stat. 839; Proc. No. 2695, eff. July 4, 1946, 11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352; Pub. L. 95–223, title I, §§101(a), 102, 103(b), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1625, 1626; Pub. L. 100–418, title II, §2502(a)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1371 ; Pub. L. 103–236, title V, §525(b)(1), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 474 .)"

--Is there anything else you would like to claim? Brokor (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Published scholarship regarding the NEA contradicts you. There is a simple explanation for this: your reading of the laws is wrong. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Mr. Anonymous - Cite your "published scholarship", and please stop with the Ad hominem. In your previous message, your citations refer to the National Emergencies Act for support, and I clearly demonstrated with quoting the law that your assumptions were incorrect. If you cannot read, it is not my problem, Sir. ""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));"" Exactly what part of this do you not understand? --Brokor (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are extraordinarily confused about what constitutes ad hominem. Second, I did not refer you to the NEA. I referred you to what certain reference books have said specifically about the effect of the NEA with regard to 1933. I don't expect you to take my word on the effect of the law, just as I don't take yours. I understand the TWEA passages that you quoted; they just don't have the legal effect that you believe they do, because they don't say what you believe they do. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

--Mr. Anonymous -So this is your tactic? I am quite familiar, believe me. You claim I don't know what I am doing, the law is only to be interpreted by Judges, and you are right and I am wrong. Is that about it? Well, apparently, your references use the NEA as backing to claim the TWEA and thus the emergency powers of the President are rescinded -and that Act, as I have very clearly quoted and referenced explicitly exempts the very provisions you claim are nullified. I do not like repeating myself, but I will extend every effort to help you understand that I will not back down on this. And, for the record, it is an Ad hominem when you choose to skip the facts and claim I am incapable of reading at a third grade level, Sir. The text, "...The provisions of this Act SHALL NOT APPLY to the following provisions of law..." are pretty clear.

Keep trying to skirt this issue if you prefer, but it isn't going anywhere. --Brokor (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't attribute to me what I have not said. I don't like repeating myself either, so I won't. I will instead refer you to Wikipedia's policy of no original research. It is a basic principle here, and if you intend to challenge it head-on, you will lose. Wikipedia isn't the repository for every pet theory of someone who's decided that 20 years of armchair study has made him the expert's expert. 16:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaving some more references here for my own benefit. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

--Mr. Anonymous - And I would appreciate it if you would STOP insisting this is simply my own research. The citations and references speak for themselves, and I have eliminated every aspect of my own "research" so you cannot use this as justification to further your own agenda. I have spent time going through your edit history. You're not exactly bullet-proof. As for your insinuations about this being original research, it's public knowledge, as CLEARLY DESCRIBED in the Senate Report 93-549 of 1973. You seem to be full of warning me about Wiki policy and doing very little about helping to make this page a better resource. If you had your way, it would be reverted back to insinuating the emergency has been rescinded (which it's not) and "modern controversy" about "conspiracy theorists", which is totally unsupported. Good day. Brokor (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Specific objections to the article as substantially written by Brokor (link): 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The version asserts that the NEA (relevant insofar as it was a product of the senate investigation) had some sort of exception that left the banking emergency of 1933 active. This is misinformation, contradicted by several published sources, including sources written by people who have made careers in the field of law, who have access to the the same documents that Brokor cites and have concluded that the act terminated all prior unterminated emergencies. It is further contradicted by Gerald Ford's signing statement as to his administration's understanding of the law. Therefore, this claim and Brokor's representations of documents in support of it, should be removed. If Brokor wants to personally subscribe to a unique reading of certain laws, that is his business; it is not the business of Wikipedia.
 * The version quotes documents other than the Report at length. Since the Report is the subject of the article, quotes from other sources do not belong in the article text except insofar as the quotes appear in the report itself, or in published works that quote those documents as part of an analysis of the Report.
 * The section titled "Actual Law Rescinding..." narrates an interpretation of events without any indication that these events, or any interpretation of them, are mentioned in the Report. It is cited to only one source, which is another Wikipedia article and therefore improper.
 * The section titled "The Strange Closing Days..." likewise does not appear to proceed from anything in the Report.
 * In each of these prior three issues, a fundamental problem is the lack of sourcing that establishes a section's relevance to the report. Not persuasion, but sourcing; or else removal of the irrelevant section. There is no obligation to keep material in an article indefinitely without establishing its relevance.

Whoever wrote this, needs to correct the mistake I will quote below. I am done trying to edit (when it will only be reverted) since the people who continuously edit this page anonymously obviously have an agenda. ""The committee noted that prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents had responded to emergencies through existing legal authority, or by seeking emergency legislation. Roosevelt took a more assertive approach, believing that the executive branch had a public duty to "do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded" except where the Constitution or laws prohibited it.[4] In responding to the Great Depression and World War II, Roosevelt used declarations of emergency to signal his intent to broaden executive power, with the expectation that Congress would cooperate. This pattern repeated under Harry Truman during the Korean War and became the backdrop of the Cold War.[5] Reflecting on the situation, the committee observed:[6]""

Evidence proves that FDR was working with the Federal Reserve Board, who drafted the exact text used in the emergency, as can be referenced by the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover. It should be noted that the war didn't include America yet, and it would be quite some time (after Pearl Harbor) before America becomes involved. I find the quoted portion above to be an insult to actual historians and it is clear it's not correct. The exact portion I am referring to is quoted next: ""Roosevelt took a more assertive approach, believing that the executive branch had a public duty to "do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded" except where the Constitution or laws prohibited it.[4] In responding to the Great Depression and World War II, Roosevelt used declarations of emergency to signal his intent to broaden executive power...""

I therefore ask for it to be removed, or at the very least reworded to be accurate. Franklin D. Roosevelt worked with Hoover when he was the President Elect, and told Hoover all he needed to know at the time. It was the Federal Reserve Board who drafted the wording to the very emergency (as can be found in the cited source) that Roosevelt declared in his Proclamations in his first days (the exact emergency noted by this Senate Report 93-549). I do see a clear attempt to placate this issue, and I have stated my case. Please resolve this. Brokor (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be reworded because it's a summary of the report and I don't see you disputing anywhere that the report says those things. I'm also flattered by your accusation that I have an "agenda," considering that every one of your edits has been axe-grinding about an event that happened over 80 years ago. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Stylistic gnomery
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)

Warring July 2015
Please stop reverting the page. My update is fully cited for accuracy. I kept the earlier data intact and asked for fact checking. Please reference my page to see the latest draft I would like to propose (Senate Report 93-549 heading). This is an attempt to stop the conflict between myself and the Anonymous editor. Please use specifics, and I will do my best to work with you to try and resolve this as quickly as possible. I will work with you, if you will work with me. This isn't personal. This is about preserving referenced data and to establish a complete Wiki page for the Senate Report. The points I will not be willing to remove are: 1. The opening paragraph, with the text "...with exception to the banking emergency of 1933, as explained below." 2. My proper quoting in the "Content" section. 3. The content directly under the heading "Trading With The Enemy Act, 1917 as Amended". -and all references and images, naturally. (Everything else is negotiable at this point). Brokor (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, I am responding down here now since we have moved beyond what was, and into actually trying to work this out, thus a new section.Brokor (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) --Please see the page I linked -reference my page, which does not include the "Strange Closing Days...", but as for your first point: "" The version asserts that the NEA (relevant insofar as it was a product of the senate investigation) had some sort of exception that left the banking emergency of 1933 active. This is misinformation, contradicted by several published sources, including sources written by people who have made careers in the field of law, who have access to the the same documents that Brokor cites and have concluded that the act terminated... ""

Bold claim. I would like you to cite the specific reference and quoted text which states the March 1933 emergency was rescinded (TWEA 1917 as amended). Why? Because I checked your Google Books reference, and in each of them, they claimed the NEA (National Emergencies Act) is the reason. I submitted my proof the NEA explicitly exempts the TWEA 1917 as amended. It doesn't get any easier to understand than that. Obama himself can write a book tomorrow stating the NEA exempts the TWEA as amended, but until it is codified in law (like it is in the NEA itself), and as long as it does not contradict the NEA (which it would), there's no point claiming your references are superior in any way. If you like, we can each add our references, but you didn't have any of that in your version. Would you like to edit the Wiki and add all your references, I can give you a few days. After, I can add my basic (modest) edit and you can tell me what you think. Then, I can submit to you a more broad edit we can each agree on. But, I would like to add, your "Modern Controversy" section does need proper citing and your .pdf link to the actual Senate Report is in Chinese. Also, you have no images of the Senate Report. Thanks, and the rest of your points will need to be addressed one at a time, most important first, if you please. There's no sense going any further in this discussion if we hit a brick wall AND argue on seventeen points at once. Take care.Brokor (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)