Part 3 - ObamaCare's Presidential Army? A Closer Look at the Ready Reserve Corps

65

By KFlippin

See all 8 photos

Part 3 - An Update on Looking in to the New Ready Reserve Corps of the Surgeon General's Office

This is the third in a series which attempts to explore the establishment of a Ready Reserve Corps in the passage of HR 3590, or AKA ObamaCare. I encourage anyone finding this to have a look at the prior two hubs for continuity and context of what is presented.

Part 1 - ObamaCare's Presidential Army? The Ready Reserve Corps - A Closer Look

Part 2 - ObamaCare's Presidential Army? The Ready Reserve Corps - A Closer Look

What a Puzzle.....Read and Examine and Follow Links and Help Work Thru This Issue so Important to Us All in the USA

In Part 2, I compared key elements of the language establishing a new Ready Reserve Corps in the health care bill, to the language existing in January 2009 ( and know, I've no idea right now if perhaps changes had already been made by this administration at this date.). There was one item that was completely different, and that was the reference to the law that would govern the compensation of the Ready Reserve Corps.

In the new health care bill, ObamaCare, it clearly states that officers will be ". . .compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended." (Follow Link to full text of this act at familyguardian.org)

The compensation language as it existed in 2009 was as follows " . . .compensated without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5."

So, what a puzzle. First of all, it only very recently occurred to me that perhaps what is more critical in understanding this section, is the fact that the phrase is "without regard". Like, what exactly does that mean, what does it accomplish? If you know, please let me know! (But do note, this is also a consistent phrase historically, not a change.)

I did my best to try and grasp the significance of the change in the compensation language, and at one point (and still think it might be likely, they did rush through the bill) I decided maybe this was just a flat out error in the bill. But operating on the assumption that it is not an error, and that it does have significance, I have presented below what I could find pertinent to the Classification Act of 1923 and the many repeals, new Classification Acts, etc... that have occurred since 1923.

The reality is that the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, was repealed long ago by the Classification Act of 1949, and many many changes have occurred since in the machinations that result in federal personnel pay decisions. So, why would this reference be made to a long dead, long out of date, compensation Act, be included in the ObamaCare bill of 2010?

That remains a really big question.......if you have the answer, please do share with me and everyone the rationale for this.

And I also have to say, I have yet to see where any of this relates to the rah rah out there in cyber-space that this particular part of the Ready Reserve Corps amendment provides in any way for Corps officers to be anti-American. Doesn't mean I'm not missing something for sure, I'm just stating I don't see it here, nor in the 'without regard for civil service' phrasing, as that one is consistent with years past.

I ran across another bill/statute that dates from at least  2003 that provides for the establishment of a Civilian Community Corps, operated with the training provided by our veteran reservists, etc..., that actually looks like a more pertinent codified law that could be used with ease to establish President Obama's clearly stated wish for a National Security Force. See the details below.........

Wonder Woman with her Lasso of Truth.....Please pardon all the Wonder Woman, but it is tiresome at times to find photos!  And the Lasso of Truth really does seem appropriate.......
Wonder Woman with her Lasso of Truth.....Please pardon all the Wonder Woman, but it is tiresome at times to find photos! And the Lasso of Truth really does seem appropriate.......

This History of the Evolution of Federal Employee Pay is Really Interesting, It Does Reference The Classification Act of 1923 - I think This is Pertinent . .

I Recommend following the OPM History Link below to the rest of this very lengthy history of the complicated issue of Federal Pay..........

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL WHITE-COLLAR PAY

The following are direct excerpts from the OPM History Page:

Classification Act of 1923 – divides work into five services and covers only headquarters positions.

Classification Act of 1949 – establishes the General Schedule nationwide.

  • The General Schedule becomes the core of the pay system and is defined in terms of:
  • Method – evaluating a position's duties and responsibilities through application of government wide classification standards becomes the basis for setting the pay of Federal employees.
  • Structure – a system of pay grades with associated fixed pay rates.
  • The 1923 Classification Act divides work into five services:
  • Professional and Scientific
  • Subprofessional
  • Clerical, Administrative, and Fiscal
  • Custodial
  • Clerical-Mechanical (covering only jobs in the Bureau of Engraving)

The Classification Act of 1949 subsequently consolidates the first three of these "services" into the General Schedule. Principle – the 1923 Classification Act introduces the principle of "equal compensation for equal work irrespective of sex," which is a significant shift from past practice in both the public and private sector. The 1923 Classification Act covers only headquarters positions. The subsequent 1949 Classification Act extends the classification system nation-wide.

 

Source:  hedcuniverse.blogspot.com
Source: hedcuniverse.blogspot.com

More of the Language in the pre-ObamaCare Provisions for the Reserve Corps

This excerpt of the U.S. Code is actually the continuation of the portion (as of 2009) I presented in Part 2 for comparison to the new ObamaCare Ready Reserve Corps language. It seemed too much to put in that earlier hub, but I now think it is pertinent to this compensation issue, as well as GustheRedneck and PCcoach's concerns about the Surgeon General's powers and the appointment of warrant officers;

"The civil-service laws, referred to in text, are set forth in Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. See, particularly, section 3301 et seq. of Title 5.

CODIFICATION

"Chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5" substituted in text for "the Classification Act of 1949, as amended" on authority of Pub. L. 89-554, Sec. 7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

 
 

AMENDMENTS

1979 - Pub. L. 96-76 inserted provisions relating to appointment and status of warrant officers.

1949 - Act Oct. 28, 1949, substituted "Classification Act of 1949" for "Classification Act of 1923".

1948 - Act Feb. 28, 1948, struck out provision that all active service in Reserve Corps, as well as service in Regular Corps, shall be credited for purpose of promotion in Regular Corps.

REPEALS

Act Oct. 28, 1949, cited as a credit to this section, was repealed (subject to a savings clause) by Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, Sec. 8, 80 Stat. 632, 655.

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

Functions of President delegated to Secretary of Health and Human Services and Surgeon General, see Ex. Ord. No. 11140, Jan. 30, 1964, 29 F.R. 1637, as amended, set out as a note under section 202 of this title."   See this link for full text of this exedutive order.

 

That Golden Lasso of Truth!
That Golden Lasso of Truth!

Source: Cornell University

Reference to the Classification Act of 1949, and the repeal of the Act of 1923, and the use of the terminology in regard to compensation as ". . .chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, -- which is found in the law regarding the Reserve Corps as of 2009. (Source Document Link)

As to the compensation of such personnel, sections 1202 and 1204 of the Classification Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 972, 973, repealed the Classification Act of 1923 and all other laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the 1949 Act. The Classification Act of 1949 was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, § 8(a), 80 Stat. 632, and reenacted as chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Section 5102 of Title 5 contains the applicability provisions of the 1949 Act, and section 5103 of Title 5 authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to determine the applicability to specific positions and employees.

Clearly, the Classification Act of 1923 has long since been repealed.

In Regard to Just What Defines a "National Emergency"

I found this in the 2009 Title 42 reference document, I haven't had a look at whether this has been amended in any way during the Obama Administration. I'm including this here as there are many, such as Breakfastpop and Gus, who very rightfully question just what defines a National Emergency. It would be worthwhile to spend some time investigating whether the U.S. Code presented below has been changed.

42 USC Sec. 204a 01/05/2009

TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 6A - PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SUBCHAPTER I - ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Part A - Administration, Sec. 204a. Deployment readiness

For purposes of this section and section 215 of this title, the term "urgent or emergency public health care need" means a health care need, as determined by the Secretary, arising as the result of -

(A) a national emergency declared by the President under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);

(B) an emergency or major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);

(C) a public health emergency declared by the Secretary under section 247d of this title; or

(D) any emergency that, in the judgment of the Secretary, is appropriate for the deployment of members of the Corps.

An Example in old (1944) U.S. Code of When the Classification Act of 1923 Applied . . . Clearly It Does Not Now!

What follows is the oldest version of U.S. Law in regard to the Commissioned Corps and Reserve Corps that I can find, and it does make reference to the legit. citation of the Classification Act of 1923, as it had not yet been repealed in 1944. I would also add the the language is very straightforward in my opinion, in comparison to all that has followed. So, here is a bit of our American History............

SOURCE: CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL (ODDLY ENOUGH)

78TH LONG., 2n SESS.-CH. 373--JULY 1, 1944

COMMISSIONED CORPS - PUBLIC LAWS-CH. 373--,JULY 1, 1944

[58 STAT. SEC. 203. There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and, for the purpose of securing a reserve for duty in the Service in time of national emergency, a Reserve Corps . All commissioned officers shall be citizens and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. Commissioned officers of the Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Commissioned officers of the Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training and active duty for the purpose of determining their fitness for appointment in the Regular Corps . All active service in the Reserve Corps, as well, as service in the Regular Corps, shall be credited for the purpose of promotion in the Regular Corps.

SPECIAL TEMPORARY POSITIONS

SEC. 207. (a) -When necessary for the accomplishment of important temporary work in time of war, or of emergency proclaimed by him, the President may establish special temporary positions in the Service and prescribe grades which shall be applicable to officers during periods they are assigned to such positions.

While assigned to any such position an officer shall receive the pay and allowances applicable to the grade so prescribed . Not more than three such positions existing at any one time shall have the grade of Assistant Surgeon General . The Surgeon General shall assign commissioned officers to such positions.

USE OF SERVICE IN EMERGENCY

SEC. 216. In time of war, or of emergency proclaimed by the President, he may utilize the Service to such extent and in such manner as shall in his judgment promote the public interest, and in time of war he may by Executive order declare the commissioned corps of the Service to be a military service.

Upon such declaration, and during the period of such war or such part thereof as the President shall prescribe, the commissioned corps (1) shall constitute a branch of the land and naval forces of the United States, and (2) to the extent prescribed by regulations of the President, shall be subject to the Articles of War and to the Articles for the Government of the Navy : Provided, That during such period or part thereof the commissioned corps shall continue to operate as part of the Service except to the extent that the President may direct as Commander in Chief.

This is an Interesting Law that Apparently still Existed in 2009 - Does it Now? And how might it be USED? Lots of Questions in an Uncertain World....

42 USC Sec. 26 01/05/2009 TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 1 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY

Sec. 26. Isolation of civilians for protection of military, air and naval forces

-STATUTE-

The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy are authorized and directed to adopt measures for the purpose of assisting the various States in caring for civilian persons whose detention, isolation, quarantine, or commitment to institutions may be found necessary for the protection of the military, air and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases.

Civilian Community Corps - Dates Back to 2003 - Something Perhaps to Keep an Eye On..........

While many Americans are on 'pins and needles' of stressful thoughts and ruminations about the legislation we know has been passed, that we as well know - we don't really know - just what the final impact will be on our lives. It would appear there are more minor laws that could perhaps be used for less than desirable purposes, and I would suggest that perhaps this is one of them:

 

42 USC 12611 - Sec. 12611. Purpose

42 USC - US Code - Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare (January 2003)

It is the purpose of this division to authorize the establishment of a Civilian Community Corps to provide a basis for determining -

(1) whether residential service programs administered by the Federal Government can significantly increase the support for national service and community service by the people of the United States;

(2) whether such programs can expand the opportunities for willing young men and women to perform meaningful, direct, and consequential acts of community service in a manner that will enhance their own skills while contributing to their understanding of civic responsibility in the United States;

(3) whether retired members and former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, members and former members of the Armed Forces discharged or released from active duty in connection with reduced Department of Defense spending, members and former members of the Armed Forces discharged or transferred from the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve in connection with reduced Department of Defense spending, and other members of the Armed Forces not on active duty and not actively participating in a reserve component of the Armed Forces can provide guidance and training under such programs that contribute meaningfully to the encouragement of national and community service; and

(4) whether domestic national service programs can serve as a substitute for the traditional option of military service in the Armed Forces of the United States which, in times of reductions in the size of the Armed Forces, is a diminishing national service opportunity for young Americans.

 

 

Comments

GusTheRedneck 21 months ago

Katie - The reason for any confusion with this thing is that confusion was intended. Another word for this is "obfuscation." This mess was either drafted by incompetents or by experts who wanted to make it possible for those in charge to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it.

Gus :-)))

pcoach profile image

pcoach Level 3 Commenter 21 months ago

I agree with Gus. The confusion is no mistake, to be sure. I think there is enough room in laws previous and current that allow the president or the HHS to declare national emergency and if not, there is always the Executive Order that would, for the most part within our country, allow almost anything to be a national emergency.

As I read this, in the last part, Public Health and Welfare (2003), it appears that he would use our current Reserves programs in the various military branches to "train" (train them how?) people in communities across the nation (thus my comment yesterday about the inner cities). Then, if we move up further to "Use of Service in Emergency" where it says, "...and in time of war he may by Executive order declare the commissioned corps of the Service to be a military service."

What I MAY be gleaning from this (man it was too early for me to get into something so deep) is that these Civilian Community Corps, after being trained by, as I read it, our own Army, Air Force, Navy reserve men/women (and these are civilian communities we are talking about) might very well, in time of national emergency, be, according to law, commissioned by the president with the powers of commissioned officers of the military.

Maybe it is just too early for me, but for the vagueness, it could be more clear! Is it possible that in preparing for the almost inevitable "revolution" that will almost certainly occur if this path we are on is not diverted soon, progressives intentionally put in this language so that immediately, community members trained by these Reserve members, become commissioned officers WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS. (There's that language again!)

Granted, in 2003, Republicans were in control BUT we had also just experienced 9/11 and republicans, being outside the progressive loop and their intentions, blind as they be it seems, may have believed this to be a well-intentioned idea, in the aftermath of 9/11. It is certainly a possibility, but it could just be conjecture on my part.

You have really put a great deal of effort into this topic and I hope you know that the effort is appreciated.

pcoach profile image

pcoach Level 3 Commenter 21 months ago

I am REALLY sorry that was so long.

KFlippin profile image

KFlippin Hub Author 21 months ago

Hi Gus, I've had to spend some time this morning reading over this again, my brain was pooped out when I finished it last night. OBFUSCATION - what a great choice of words to reflect so much of the language in legislation, and that's really about the only thing I can figure is the reason for this odd reference to the old Classification Act of 1923. They surely wouldn't have had an old copy from 1944 at hand as a working tool when they were drafting this.

Is the answer in the OPM description of the 1923 Act? They say it applied only to "headquarters positions". I have a copy of that act, but it looks like I failed to include a link to it here in the hub, I will remedy that shortly. Maybe fresh eyes reading that Act can shed some light on why it was used in this bill..........Katie

KFlippin profile image

KFlippin Hub Author 21 months ago

Hi Coach,

Yes, I have to say this moring, I agree with you both, the confusion here has to have been intended. And on the Civilian Community Corps, I read it pretty much as you've described. The thing is, when I let my mind roam and imagine such a thing as having one, one led and trained by our own reservists and retired military, I find it a huge stretch of my imagination to conceive of this new group, should it be already working, or should it be in the future, ever actually turning against their fellow Americans. It would have to be the Con of all Cons, the ultimate brainwash, for such a group to basically turn on their own -- but then maybe I'm being naive, I've certainly been accused of being naive to my own detriment many times in life!!

But, regardless, this CCC, would be the most handy tool for establishing a national security force that I've run across. I suppose I'm going to follow up and see if there have been any changes or action on this 2003 law.

I have put a lot of effort in to this, and I appreciate your recognizing that, it strikes me as a good public service deed :)))) Katie

And no worries that it was so long! The whole reason for putting this together and here on HP is to generate thoughtful review and comments in an effort to understand just what we should or shouldn't be wary of in regard to the alarming chatter about a national security force, etc..... Katie

KFlippin profile image

KFlippin Hub Author 21 months ago

I've added a long list of references for handy use, and welcome any and all to follow them and read with their own fresh eyes, as mine are getting tired, and I think this issue of 'without regard to Class Act 1923' being literally unearthed from ancient U.S. code to be disturbing and worth trying to find the catch, the motive, the impact.....and trying to determine if it does somehow actually have to do with funding, as is stated in so many other reviews of this new law.......

Many thanks to those of you who have followed this journey!

tom hellert profile image

tom hellert Level 7 Commenter 21 months ago

KF,

Whats next the black or red arm bans witha white circle and a hakencrutz (swastika) in it? RCC? are they like the brown shirts of Nazi Germany.

All these new officers are they the new SS? Or a "civilian safety force as powerful as the military?

So much for transparancy-I am worried if 2012 elections will be held?

TH

KFlippin profile image

KFlippin Hub Author 21 months ago

Hi Tom,

I for the most part don't see where anything I've found would indicate there is a new national security force brewing, definitely there are some things to question, and definitely that old law that could establish a Civilian Community Corps sounds pretty handy to use for just such a thing.

But, I'm no legal scholar, and it is plain hard to dig through all this and find referencing documents and try to find if there have already been even more amendments, etc.......so my hope is that you and others will follow some of these links and have a look as well and see what you all think, what you find, that I may have overlooked, misunderstood. In the meantime, I'm going to keep reviewing things when time permits.

Wading through all this puts a whole new meaning in play for me to "reading between the lines".... :)

Thanks very much for commenting, and also, if anything were being put together, I think we'd all know it, as a matter of fact, I'd imagine this administration would use it as a tool to reduce unemployment, maybe they will do just that, only time will tell........Katie

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop Level 8 Commenter 21 months ago

I agree with everyone. The confusion is built in and intentional. This administration is very fond of writing 3000 page bills that are impossible to read on purpose. Your work on this subject is fantastic and thorough. Thumbs up!

KFlippin profile image

KFlippin Hub Author 21 months ago

Thanks, POP, it is a lot to wade through. But at http://thomas.loc.gov/ you can put in the search words about "compensation without regard to Classification Act of 1923", and find only 5 bills that contain those specific words, and all are in some version of the health care bill from the 111th Congress.

If you put in the search string for the old language "compensated without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5" you get 6 exact hits from the 103rd Congress, all involve the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1993, of all things! :) That struck me as odd, but it's easy to get paranoid.

Anyway, I'm burnt out, tried to work with it some more today, and I STILL really have no idea why the wording is different, what signicance it may have. There are so many sources you can find for research, but I can tell they aren't all comprehensive, like this link I gave you above, it has limitations apparently, and maybe a legal eagle will stumble across this and read through and understand both compensation acts and clarify whether there is anything to be concerned about the manner in which they are used in regard to this Ready Reserve Corps, and I'm sure other things/issues that will arise.

Thanks much for the thumbs up, and I'm happy to know you appreciate the work on this.

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working