Talk:Executive Order 13233

EO 13233 has been struck down, mostly

Somebody who understands legalese better than I do might want to add that a federal court threw out most of EO 13233 in October 2007. In other words, this is all old. See:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20071001/index.htm (with link to PDF of the ruling) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.40.48 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is new information on the White House Website http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ regarding this executive order. It says "Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.227.182 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Does this EO expire/how long are the records now protected?

Those are two of the questions that pop to my mind that don't seem to appear in the article, but should be in the opening paragraph probably. I've been reading over the text of the EO, but I am not a lawyer and can't really get my head around it :) --Fxer 06:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The EO expires for sure when Bush leaves office. Because it is not a law, just a policy, it can't be enforced on the new administration. However, the next President is free to make a carbon-copy of the order. -NordsternMN 22:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

EOs do not expire when the President who issues that EO leaves office. EOs are in effect until a future President recinds the EO or if there is a time limit on the EO. Jons63 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Answers

The EO will not expire unless repealed by a future EO, a public law, or a court decision.

The records are still protected 12 years under EO 13233, but now record can be kept under wraps much longer at the discretion of the a former president or his/her heirs.

References

The first two references from archives.gov are dead... anyone know of a replacement? (unsigned question from Psantora 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Search on the website yielded modified url locations, which are now fixed. Ombudsman 07:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

It seems to me that this article may be leaning towards one point of view. Whether or not that view is in the end valid, it introduces a bias which is not befitting of an encylopedia article. The only source cited explicitly in the body of the article is an anti-bush website. So I think this article may need a partial rewrite to make it more informational and less persuasive. -192.104.254.70 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I started to add <ref> tags. There's plenty to do, and some of the quotes are only vaguely sourced. My goal is to tie the quotes more tightly to easily verifiable links; right now, it's just so-and-so said, which takes a bit of doing to verify. grendel|khan 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article could surely do with more references, and perhaps even deserves an "unreferenced" tag - but at this point, I don't think it warrants the "bias" tag, so I shall remove it. BlackberryLaw 04:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge PRA Amendments of 2007 here

I propose merging Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 to this article. The PRA Amendments did not pass (See [1]), and the 110th Congress is now history; it cannot be passed (although a bill with the same content but different name could be re-introduced and passed). There's little or nothing in Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 that is not already in this article, in the section Congressional response. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added what little extra information there was in the PRA article, and replaced it by a redirect to this page. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1972 1974 Act

What was the 1972 Act? Can someone cite it here?—Markles 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a 1972 Act. (That doesn't mean there wasn't one.) There is a Presidential Records Act of 1978, and I've added it to the "See also" section. Maybe that was unnecessary, come to think of it, since I now see it's linked in the body. TJRC (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant 1974. The current version of this article states in the "Background" section: "In 1974, Congress passed legislation…." What is it?—Markles 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974. I've updated the article to reference it. TJRC (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Markles, you got me sufficiently intrigued that I've made an article: Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Executive Order 13233. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1193
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122234307/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Order 13233. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205193841/http://www.ala.org/ala/godort/godortresolutions/20020121269.htm to http://www.ala.org/ala/godort/godortresolutions/20020121269.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)