"Without compensation" is in reference to the nature of contract work, where the contractor gets paid but is not an employee of the government and therefore ineligible for government compensation (ie benefits). It's government business jargon, and your interpretation of it is wildly off target.

[deleted]

Spoken so credibly! You have won me over to your cause!

[deleted]

In all fairness you didn't even really make a point.

[deleted]

They understand that you're out of your mind.

[deleted]

Didn't you pull out the Ad hominem's first? As in, from the beginning?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Lol nice Wikipedia link. Glad to know that passes for evidence around here.

[deleted]

Um, no, but thanks for wasting my time.

[deleted]

In all fairness you didn't even present any evidence based on your slavery claim.

... Coming from the guy who thinks a Forbes article counts as evidence of anything? Sure. Whatever.

[deleted]

How about evidence? Look, you know words right? Concepts? You can think? Compare and contrast? Use this power of yours and figure out what does and does not constitute evidence. Then you'll have caught up to the rest of the world and reddit and you won't have to waste so much of your own and others time.

Hint: opinions are never evidence, regardless of the publisher

[deleted]

I'm not the one making claims. The burden of proof for your fantastic theories is on you alone my friend.

I'm done, bye.

Do you support Ron Paul?

This does not equal slavery. You have, unintentionally, posted misinformation. Be careful man.

Unintentionally or intentionally?

[deleted]

I'll bet you will.

[deleted]

Who is paying you to post this story?

[deleted]

Your enthusiasm in the face of being absolutely proved wrong is insane. I would imagine money is your motive. Paid to defend this argument no matter what?

[deleted]

You are a shill. It's not even worth my time to respond. I'm arguing against your paycheck.

You either don't know what slavery is, or you're completely misinterpreting this executive order.

Employment is not involuntary, unlike slavery.

Necro, I'm curious if you've read the full text of this bill on whitehouse.gov.

This order is not limited to forced employment. It authorizes forced, unpaid labor during "peacetime" (Sec 102) and "non-emergency situations," (Sec 201) without Congressional approval, and cannot be construed as unconstitutional by the courts (Sec 804).

It also authorizes the executive branch to unilaterally guarantee loans and contracts, to regulate market prices, and to compel research and development by the private sector. Remember, this is during peacetime and non-emergency situations. Forced, unpaid labor during peacetime is slavery. How else would you define it?

Can you quote the part where it "expressly authorizes forced, unpaid labor?"

You say Section 804 but I read that and it's nothing like what you said.

Sec. 804. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

No, no. Section 804 is where the Order is immunized against judicial review by saying that the document cannot be "construed" to inhibit the Director of OMB (since construing is specifically the bailiwick of the courts and means to interpret the law, which is part of the system of checks and balances).

The part where it says they can force unpaid labor is in 103 (c), and several other places. But of course they don't say it in those words. Instead they use legalese that carries the same meaning. What they say is that the appointed departments and agencies (all of whom are employees of the executive branch, so are under the president's authority) may "take actions necessary" to ensure labor. So, why does that mean they can use force?

Well, the executive branch is charged with the power of law enforcement. They can't take legislative action, and they can't take judicial action. They can only take military action. And militaries act with force. Simple as that. So they can use force to compel labor. It does not say they have to compensate people for it, and since this is an extension of the Defense Production Act, you'll understand that they have no intention to compensate people for the labor because it's considered a citizen's duty (under threat of execution) to work or fight for his or her country in war time, and now - because of the amendments in this Order - they consider it a citizen's duty during peacetime and non-emergency situations as well.

[deleted]

Just browsing the /new queue.

So do you think this executive order is forcing people into slavery? It says explicitly "employ." As in, people who choose to work, not people who are forced to work.

[deleted]

Really? Another shill accusation? I'm so surprised.

I neither downvoted nor provided misinformation. Do you think employment = slavery as well?

[deleted]

Employment is voluntary, how is this so hard to understand? Slavery is involuntary. You are FORCED to work as a slave. I read the EO and it says NOTHING about forced work.

It says the executive branch can "take actions necessary" to ensure the availability of labor during peacetime and non-emergency situations. When the executive branch "takes actions necessary," that can obviously include military action, otherwise known as "force." You have to read between the lines a bit, Necro. You're allowing them to fool you with legalese. You sound smarter than that.

Also, stop using your alternate accoutns to upvote every one of your comments, and downvote every one of OPs. It's too obvious. Most people don't read through every comment in a thread that has gotten this lengthy. They get bored after a while. So if this were real people upvoting and downvoting, it wouldn't be almost the same number of upvotes and the same number of downvotes on every comment. It'd be more upvotes and downvotes near the top comments, with a decreasing return the further you get down the page. You're giving yourself away too easily. Just a hint for future reference, bro.

I don't have alternate accounts. In fact, I often upvote this guy so people can see how crazy he is.

I have, however, downvoted him for breaking rules, mainly for being insulting and threatening. And just so you don't get the wrong idea, I see you have 1 upvote and 2 downvotes on this post at the time of this reply.

http://i.imgur.com/T2ol0k8.png

[deleted]

Lol are you really using that argument? Just because it has order in the name doesn't mean Obama is ordering people to be taken as slaves.

"The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c)"

Do you know what "delegate" means? Here, I'll help you out:

Entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

All authorities are delegated to executive branch positions, if you look them up. They all answer to the President, ultimately, so it's not a real separation of powers, just a delegation within the same organization.

Couldn't this cover unpaid internships? They're employed, but not compensated.

They also can't be compeled by force during peacetime and non-emergency situations. This order authorizes that expressly.

[deleted]

As someone stated elsewhere, in slavery the individual is treated as property. It's really not the same thing.

I agree, however, that it is labor exploitation. But it's not slavery.

So really it's an executive suggestion Lmao

A suggestion which authorizes force to carry out its mandates. So...no

[deleted]

Or volunteer work, or interships, or...anything but slavery.

You can't compel volunteerism and internships with force, can you?

Because this Order allows the executive branch to do that...during "peacetime" and "non-emergency situations."

[deleted]

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.

Employment is a relationship between two parties, usually based on a contract, one being the employer and the other being the employee.

I will keep telling myself that, because it's the truth.

Section 103 (c):

Executive departments and agencies...shall..."take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services..."

Where do you see the word "employment" in there, Necro? When they say "take actions necessary" you have to remember that this is the executive branch, and that when they take action, it is military action. So this means that they can compel labor by force. That is not eployment by any definition.

The part where I saw employment was both in the title of this thread and the aforementioned section (502) that the OP is going on and on about.

Anyway, I think that's really stretching it. There isn't really a lot of this EO that's new.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

"the Executive Order itself is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place in decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don't already have under existing law. The Defense Production Act has been in effect since the Truman Administration, and authorizes the President to direct private business to allocate resources to national defense as needed in time of national emergency."

The DPA has been around for a while, that's true, but having these powers during national emergencies, as you mentioned, versus having them during "peacetime" and "non-emergency" situations, is vast and merrits serious concern. The peacetime and non-emergency terms are new to this version of the DPA, and constitute a major amendment.

This incarnation of the legislation is also the first time that it has been made immune to judicial review, and to the check of Congressional approval. Those are very significant changes, as those are the most important checks of each of those respective branches - the power to declare unconstitutionality, and the power to declare war.

And there is a third significant amendment which manifests as a delegation of powers, normally reserves for only the President. Each of the various directors and agencies appointed therein are given authority to make executive decisions that only the President has previously been able to make, without further approval. A decentralization of Presidential authority is pretty huge in itself. Perhaps as significant as the cecession from checks and balances. It means that we now have a bunch of mini-Presidents, each in charge of a portion of Presidential authority. And those are not elected positions; they are appointed, which bypasses The People's ability to grant approval for their use. Another major check.

So, from that perspective, the 3 most important checks on Presidential power have been overruled by this document: Congress's power to declare war, the Judiciary's power to declare unconstitutionality, and The People's power to choose who holds the powers of the Commander in Chief. Far more than a simple re-statement of previous powers.

[deleted]

When you say two things are the same and I provide definitions proving you wrong, it is the truth.

[deleted]

Only if I choose to volunteer my services.

The Illuminate is stalking you. We have been keeping close tabs on you. By the way, how is your 2004 Honda CBX 250 Twister doing?

Goddammit, either OP is an idiot or a covert /r/conspiratard user trying to troll here.

I can tell you he's not from /r/conspiratard, I've dealt with him extensively in the past. Make of that what you will.

I have a hard time believing he can be that stupid, since he apparently got the time to extract information from the bill (which would mean he is not lazy enough to read a boring piece of document). Maybe controlled opposition? Maybe I am underestimating his stupidity.

Since he regularly posts in a subreddit like this that "outs" anyone who posts disagreeing opinions? I'd say he's a bit paranoid aside from being a regular /r/conspiracy poster.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratroll/

[deleted]

Haha really? You're the one that started stalking me, replying to tons of my comments all in the span of a few days in multiple threads. Going with the shill angle again I see.

I would almost feel sorry for your delusions if you weren't such an ass to everyone, especially me.

[deleted]

Only because none of the evidence gets through your thick skull. It's not my fault you aren't convinced, when you liken employment to slavery. I've provided plenty of evidence and definitions in this thread, but you're just sitting there ignoring all of it or telling me the definitions mean nothing.

Would you be more convinced if I used a holograph and beamed it straight into your head with satellites?

[deleted]

How is it a strawman if it's something you believe?

I already have explained it. Employment is a contract, and you have to be willing to be employed. How much compensation you receive has nothing to do with whether it is voluntary or involuntary. As I said before, slavery is involuntary. It doesn't get more simple than that.

Do you have proof that the government is literally forcing people to work for them against their will?

The former of those cases is far more likely than the latter.

Just answer me this: Was it illegal to employ persons without compensation before? What about an unpaid internship?

[deleted]

If it was never illegal, wouldn't in your logic slavery also never have been illegal?

Also, where in the EO (or any other law) does it say that people may be employed against their will? And wouldn't such a law directly contradict the 13th amendment to the constitution?

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude

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

Why does OP think the /r/conspiracy subscribers are extremely gullible?

The full text of 13603 on Whitehouse.gov

This Executive Order is quite troubling, but perhaps not primarily for the reasons I'm seeing discussed here. Two aspects of it are especially disconcerting to me:

One is that, although prior incarnations of this Order - in the form of the Defense Production Act - did already grant many of these powers, they did so in times of war or national emergency only, which means they required Congressional approval - a vital aspect of checks and balances. This latest version bypasses that check by extending the powers to "peacetime" (Sec 102 and 103(b)) and "non-emergency situations" (Sec 201(b)).

Another vital check is flouted in Section 804, where it says "Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals."

This seems relatively harmless unless you know the legal definition of the word "construe." It's meaning is very specific. Only the courts can construe; it means to interpret the law (possibly the most important power of the courts). So what this section is saying is that the courts cannot interpret this order in any way that inhibits the guy who decides how money is spent in the Executive branch. If the Director of OMB decides that money can be allocated to the forcible seizure of labor and goods during peacetime, the courts cannot interpret this as an unconstitutional action, because that would inhibit his decision.

The flouting of the two most important checks and balances is tantamount to a cecession of the Executive branch from the other two branches of US government, and I find that troubling indeed. Moreover, the Executive branch has already demonstrated a willingness to flout those powers, when it refused to abide a federal injunction on the NDAAs indefinite detention clause, and further refused a Congressional inquiry about whether anyone had already been detained under its authority. So this is not an idle possibility of cecession; it is demonstrably in occurence.

I'm not thinking slavery, I'm thinking lobbyists! Not on the payroll, but able to make decisions? Who is then liable or accountable?!

[deleted]

Oh fuck!...

Slavery has been here for at least majority of the ppl in prison that are owned privately so elite can profit but thats been going on for time

[deleted]

So basically they will hunt these people with outstanding experience and abilities to use their expertise but what if they dont accept?

This is the military, so when it says that they can "take actions necessary," they mean military action. In other words, force. The options will be to work, or be imprisoned, or be killed. And remember, this is all legal during "peacetime" and "non-emergency situations." That never used to be the case with the older versions of the Defense Production Act. It's new to this itteration.

They will ask, "Who is John Galt?" and then disappear.

You fool, Atlas just shrugged ;-)

Ah yes, Atlas Shrugged is practically what we are living through, if this order is what OP thinks it is, it's just another nail in the coffin.

Employment is voluntary, how is this so hard to understand? Slavery is involuntary. You are FORCED to work as a slave. I read the EO and it says NOTHING about forced work.

So really it's an executive suggestion Lmao

They will ask, "Who is John Galt?" and then disappear.

Couldn't this cover unpaid internships? They're employed, but not compensated.

Spoken so credibly! You have won me over to your cause!

Lol are you really using that argument? Just because it has order in the name doesn't mean Obama is ordering people to be taken as slaves.

"The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c)"

Do you know what "delegate" means? Here, I'll help you out:

Entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

I have a hard time believing he can be that stupid, since he apparently got the time to extract information from the bill (which would mean he is not lazy enough to read a boring piece of document). Maybe controlled opposition? Maybe I am underestimating his stupidity.

Lol nice Wikipedia link. Glad to know that passes for evidence around here.

Do you support Ron Paul?

This is the military, so when it says that they can "take actions necessary," they mean military action. In other words, force. The options will be to work, or be imprisoned, or be killed. And remember, this is all legal during "peacetime" and "non-emergency situations." That never used to be the case with the older versions of the Defense Production Act. It's new to this itteration.