Revision of Nationality Laws of the United States

1940 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-46
Author(s):  
Richard W. Flournoy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Secretary Of State

It is to be hoped that one of the first measures to which Congress will give its attention during the next session will be the bill (H. R. 6127) “To revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code.” This bill was introduced by the Honorable Samuel Dickstein, Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives, May 3,1939. It embodies a draft nationality code, which was prepared under the direction of a committee composed of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor, in pursuance of an Executive Order of April 25, 1933. The cabinet committee submitted its report June 1, 1938, upon the basis of extensive studies and conferences by officials of the three Departments, and the report was submitted to Congress with a message of the President dated June 13, 1938.

Organization of the Executive Branch of the National Government of the United States: Changes between October 1, 1939, and April 11, 1940

1940 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-518
Author(s):  
L. F. Schmeckebier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
National Government ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Reorganization Plan

As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order or Reorganization Plans under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.A. Reorganization Plan No. III, under authority of the act of April 3, 1939 (53 Stat. L. 561), was transmitted to Congress on April 2, 1940; it will become effective 60 calendar days thereafter; a resolution disapproving the plan was adopted by the House of Representatives, but was rejected by the Senate. The changes made by this plan are as follows:Administrator of Civil Aëronautics. The designation of the Administrator of the Civil Aëronautics Authority is changed to Administrator of Civil Aëronautics.

Fear and Liberty

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-101
Author(s):  
Mary S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Red Scare ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Small Arms ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Arms Trade ◽  
Soviet Russia

On June 2, 1919, bombs exploded in eight cities in the United States, including at the doorstep of the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in Washington, D.C. Mass arrests and deportations brought on by the Red Scare that followed convinced communist parties to go underground, while fears of the Communist International persisted. Two offices in the State Department oversaw the gathering and analysis of intelligence pertaining to Soviet Russia: the Office of the Under Secretary of State and the Division of Eastern European Affairs. The former drew on wartime connections with the British; the latter assessed intelligence gathered by diplomats at posts in Eastern Europe. In the mid-1920s, the State Department’s Office of the Under Secretary of State prepared a study of the global arms trade that comported with intelligence reports from British secret services: an illicit small arms trade flourished even among those countries subjected to international weapons inspectors.

Congress, the Foreign Service, and the Department of State

1930 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-366
Author(s):  
Irvin Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Service Personnel ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Foreign Service ◽  
Secretary Of State

On July 1, 1924, there became effective an act for the reorganization and improvement of the Foreign Service of the United States, popularly known as the Rogers Act, which had been approved on May 24. That act combined the hitherto separate diplomatic and consular services into a single Foreign Service. Admission to the Foreign Service was for the most part to be upon competitive examination, and promotion was to be based upon merit. The act left to the executive the establishment of the system for ascertaining merit.Pursuant to the Rogers Act, an executive order of June 7, 1924, created a Foreign Service Personnel Board. The composition of the board was slightly changed by an executive order of February 25, 1928, under the terms of which the board was to be composed of three assistant secretaries of state to be designated by the Secretary of State, and three Foreign Service officers. The three Foreign Service officers, representing both the diplomatic and consular branches, were to constitute the executive committee of the board.Among other things, the Foreign Service Personnel Board was charged with the duty of submitting to the Secretary, when vacancies should arise in the Foreign Service, lists of officers whose records of efficiency entitled them to advancement in the service and who were therefore recommended for promotion. A departmental order directed the executive committee to take possession of all records relating to the personnel of the diplomatic and consular services and to keep the efficiency records of all Foreign Service officers.

Silence of the Land: On the Historical Irrelevance of Territory to Congressional Districting and Political Representation in the United States

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Congressional District ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
Communities Of Interest

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.

Interaction of Ukrainian Diaspora and the USA Government Regarding Celebration of Ukrainian Independence Day on January 22

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (47) ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Halyna Shchyhelska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
The Public ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Consciousness ◽  
The Usa

2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. OnJanuary 22, 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic proclaimed its independence by adopting the IV Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada, although this significant event was «wiped out» from the public consciousness on the territory of Ukraine during the years of the Soviet totalitarian regime. At the same time, January 22 was a crucial event for the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA. This article examines how American Ukrainians interacted with the USA Government institutions regarding the celebration and recognition of the Ukrainian Independence day on January 22. The attention is focused on the activities of ethnic Ukrainians in the United States, directed at the organization of the special celebration of the Ukrainian Independence anniversaries in the US Congress and cities. Drawing from the diaspora press and Congressional Records, this article argues that many members of Congress participated in the observed celebration and expressed kind feelings to the Ukrainian people, recognised their fight for freedom, during the House of Representatives and Senate sessions. Several Congressmen submitted the resolutions in the US Congress urging the President of United States to designate January 22 as «Ukrainian lndependence Day». January 22 was proclaimed Ukrainian Day by the governors of fifteen States and mayors of many cities. Keywords: January 22, Ukrainian independence day, Ukrainian diaspora, USA, interaction, Congress

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document