On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:24:01 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:
Ah well, remember when we all laughed about "getting the government we
deserved"?
I didn't laugh Richard.
I've been sitting around wondering why there aren't somewhere between ten
and thirty Hatch Act violation cases underway right now.
I had to go look that one up.
The Hatch act precluded federal employees from membership in "any
political organization which advocates the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government."
I'm not sure where you are going with it though.
Richard
========
Perhaps you stopped reading too soon.
Remember that when the Hatch Act was passed in 1939, many people
saw the Democratic Party as communist, and in the process of
subverting the republic by buying votes with the employment
programs such as the WPA, PWA, CCC, etc., and other socialist
measures such as social security.
The Hatch act was enacted in 1939 to both prevent the civil
service from engaging in political activity, and to prevent the
politicians from requiring "voluntary" political activity and
contributions from the civil service employees for employment
retention/advancement.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm
The Hatch prohibited *ALL* executive branch federal employees,
and individuals paid directly or indirectly through federal
programs, from engaging in partisan political activity,
especially on government time, using government facilities [i.e.
phones, computers, duplicating equipment, paper, franking, etc.].
This was one of the legitimate reasons the White House staff has
multiple email accounts. One with a .gov extension for
governmental business, one through the RNC for political
business, and possibly more. They also generally have 2 phone
lines, one for official business and one for politics, etc.
The Hatch Act was "reformed" in 1993 by the Republican Congress,
similar to the Glass-Steagall banking reform.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov.../hatch_act.htm
snip
All civilian employees in the executive branch of the federal
government, except the President and the Vice President, are
covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
These employees may not:
* use official authority or influence to interfere with an
election
* solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with
business before their agency
* solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in
certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee
organizations)
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office
o wearing an official uniform
o using a government vehicle
* wear partisan political buttons on duty
Additional Partisan Activity Prohibitions
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in
the following categories, are subject to more extensive
restrictions on their political activities than employees in
other Departments and agencies:
* Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C.
§ 5372)
* Central Imagery Office
* Central Intelligence Agency
* Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. §
5372a)
* Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
* Defense Intelligence Agency
* Federal Bureau of Investigation
* Federal Elections Commission
* Merit Systems Protection Board
* National Security Agency
* National Security Council
* Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
* Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
* Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms)
* Office of Special Counsel
* Secret Service
* Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5
U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
snip
---------------
*IF* anyone in the US Attorneys offices, Justice Department, IRS,
FBI, NSA, INS, etc. etc. [all executive agencies] engaged in
overt or covert political activity, for example indicting
Democratic candidates just before the election, suborning
perjured testimony to overturn a close election, or leaking
damaging information to the media [Spitzer?], this is a blatant
violation of the 1939 Hatch Act as amended. This can be either
the actual performance [or omission, for example disclosing
exculpatory evidence to the defense in a criminal trial] or the
*CAUSING* of such commission or omission, and if more than a
single person is involved, the "conspiracy statues," and their
penalties kick in, and if a continuing pattern of behavior can be
shown [generally 3 related felonies showing an on-going
conspiracy or criminal enterprise] the RICO [Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] statute may "kick in."
for some "leads" see
http://www.crosstabs.org/stories/the...rat_ indicted
http://misterturnbow.blogspot.com/20...-democrat.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/21/183833/39
http://www.truthout.org/article/rove...re-us-attorney
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00350.htm
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002293
google on democrat indictment election US-attorney for 269k
hits if you are interested.
Clinton was attempting to do the same thing in the spirit of
down-home Arkansas politics, but the Republican Congress had
enough votes to impeach (but not convict), thus were able to put
a thumb in that particular eye.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).