Talk:Executive Order 3577
Add topicLatest comment: 13 years ago by Clindberg in topic Superseded?
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Source: | From Laws Relating to the Navy, annotated: Navexos P-546, HathiTrust/Google/University of Michigan scan, page 1518. |
| Contributor(s): | Clindberg |
| Level of progress: | Proofread and corrected 
|
Superseded?
[edit]This was probably nullified (or over-ridden) via incorporation into the Government Manual of Style of the day long before the issuance of EO 5220 - which formally points to the Manual for the authority to be used until this "manner (of signature)" was finally codified into what became the CFR at some point.
Tomatoe ~ tomato - I'm not going go hunt it down either way. See related will do. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Executive Order 11354 modified this part for proclamations, but apparently left this form for other documents. 5220 is for other aspects of proclamations, not this one in particular. It's possible it was amended somewhere along the way. The archive.gov numeric index lists only the two orders as related to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- <shrug> The only thing we know fairy sure now that you've nailed down the content was EO 3577 was codified because its listed in the NARA table. The old Part 1 (technically Chapter 1 back then) & Part 7 (currently deleted) of what today is Title I of the CFR are long gone or have been moved around so much its hard to find where & when this "manner" was still specifically codified. At some point (or in tangent with), the codification or regulations reverted simply to follow the GPO manual of style of the day (which had this nugget in it by 1929 anyway).
- If that manual had what was suggested in EO 3577 by EO 5220 (if I remember previous research right that is), its just a matter of which authority applied and at what point in time - was it EO 3577 in full or regulations pursuant to the equivalent being re-stated in paragraph 4 in EO 5220 (when exactly?).
- Its splitting hairs & until it becomes important somehow See Related is fine by me. — George Orwell III (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd say it is splitting hairs. But, most likely, I'd guess the EO was the authority, and the manual would just repeat it. 5220 just delegates authority on matters of punctuation and orthography (i.e. spelling, hyphenation, etc.), not stuff like this it seems to me. It took another EO to change it, which seems the best evidence, so it looks to me as though 3577 applied unmodified to proclamations until the 1967 EO changed it. All the other EOs which specified the style and handling of proclamations all seem to have avoided this particular aspect (the content of this dating line). It's in the source Navexos book because the EO still had legal effect in 1949. Indeed, Proclamation 3561 (in 1963) follows this style exactly, and Proclamation 3792 (in 1967) has the style specified by EO 11354. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)