The Cyberspace Electronic Security Act of 1999, with texts, links, and commentary
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
A Look at Reinventing The Government with Will Power
url for following article…..
http://www.executiveorders.org/
End presidential tyranny.
Halt congressional dereliction.
Stop judicial passiveness.
During the recent presidential scandals, concluding with the impeachment of
President Clinton, many people were heard to say that the investigations should end
so that the president could get back to “the business of running the country.” Under
a constitution dedicated to individual liberty and limited government – which divides,
separates, and limits power – how did we get to a point where so many Americans
think of government as embodied in the president and then liken him to a man
running a business?
The answer rests in part with the growth of presidential rule through executive
orders and national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Constitution defines
presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the
power of a president to rule by executive order – except by reference to that general
language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is
especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they
usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about
the separation and division of powers.
The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from
the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in
the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more
and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to
check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts
have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking.
Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases – in 1952 and 1996 – laying down
the principles of the matter; the nation’s governors have just forced President
Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in
Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offer hope
that constitutional limits – and the separation and division of powers, in particular –
may eventually be restored.
William J. Olson and Alan Woll
Executive Orders and National Emergencies
How Presidents Have Come to “Run the
Country” by Usurping Legislative Power
CATO Institute, Policy Analysis, No. 358, Oct. 28,
1999
James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.
Executive Orders and the Demise of Liberty
November 12, 1999 NewsMax.com
The power of the national government has increased substantially over us during the last
several decades. American presidents of both political parties; Congress regardless of its
majority party; and the courts have failed to honor the American constitutional requirement
of the separation of powers – the separation of powers our country’s founders knew to be
necessary in order for them and for us to live in liberty.
It is not possible for a constitutional republic to maintain itself. A great and noble
system of government requires perpetual vigilance on the part of its citizenry if it is
to survive.
Sadly, within our own precious land, a subtle but virulent type of distortion has been
taking place. The assault has been slow but persistent. It has occurred beyond the
grasp and view of many Americans.
Most alarming, though, is that we now find ourselves in a situation where the
rudimentary mechanisms of our republic, the actual underpinnings of our
representative structure, are in danger.
At the superficial level, procedures appear to be routine in nature and government
seems to be operating facilely. So by what means could so seemingly a solid and
efficient system be threatened?
The instrument of destruction that hangs over us like the sword of Damocles goes
by various titles, but most commonly it is referred to as the executive order. When
used as originally intended, an executive order is a written method of
communication that enables a president to facilitate and effectuate necessary
administrative functions.
However, this tool has slowly been corrupted over time. It is now being used with
the very intention of circumventing our system of representative government.
Most Americans would be shocked to find out that President Clinton, acting alone,
has:
Taken legislation that was voted down by our elected representatives and,
acting as a one-man Congress, signed it into law;
Resurrected a law that had previously been terminated by Congress, so as to
alter policy relating to the export of sensitive technology;
Created secret laws that are unable to be seen, even upon written request, by
the people, press, Congress, or even select intelligence committees of
Congress;
Changed four decades of military policy, where previously a launch on
warning was required if it were verified that an enemy missile was headed
toward our mainland or our territories, to a launch on impact, where we are
required to sustain a potentially devastating nuclear missile hit, with likely
casualties, before we respond;
Erased a crucial, foundational part of our Constitution, the Tenth Amendment;
Implemented unratified international treaties, ignoring the constitutional
requirement of the two-thirds approval vote by our duly elected
representatives in the Senate;
Secretly assigned our troops to the United Nations and placed them under
foreign command;
Enabled United Nations representatives in a given NGO to be immune from
legal action for violations of law;
Placed the country in a state of emergency that allows the president, or
others in his administration, to suspend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution
at will.
Every American citizen should find the above list of items extremely disconcerting.
But equally distressing is the fact that the present administration plans to accelerate
its approach further still.
And so, with an urgency that has rare parallels in our history, we must determine
how to stop the ever-increasing, pernicious usurpation of power that has been
occurring through Bill Clinton’s abuse of the executive order process.
.
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
Clinton is pushing the envelope. He’s consistently trying to take
more power than Congress gives him.
David Schoenbrod, New York Law School professor, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1998
” …he [Clinton] has also pursued an ‘executive order strategy’ that
goes way beyond trying to guide federal agencies in how to
implement laws.”
The Wall Street Journal (editorial) August 6, 1998
“We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do
anything legislatively.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
~
On October 27, 1999, the U.S. House Committee on Rules, Subcommittee on Legislative
and Budget Process held a hearing on “The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative
Process: Executive Lawmaking?” William J. Olson, co-author of Executive Orders and
National Emergencies testified before the committee. To read his statement, please click
here.
Legislation to restore the separation of powers of our national government, thereby
helping to restore our liberty, was introduced on July 30, 1999 by Representative Ron Paul
(Texas) and Representative Jack Metcalf (Washington).
H.R. 2655 – The Separation of Powers Restoration Act will:
1.Prohibit a presidential executive order from having the effect of law.
2.Suspend all states of national emergencies declared since 1976 (the last
time Congress canceled such declarations).
3.Grant legal standing to individual members of the United States Congress,
state officials and private citizens who believe a presidential executive order
is unconstitutional.
4.Repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
On October 28, 1999, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 2655 – The Separation of
Powers Restoration Act. Representative Ron Paul and Representative Jack Metcalf
testified before the committee. To read Representative Paul’s statement, please click
here. To read Representative Metcalf’s statement, please click here.
Is your U.S. representative a co-sponsor of H.R. 2655?
@@@@@@@@@@@@
url for the following article by Neal Boortz from back in 1998….
http://www.boortz.com/13083.htm
~
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
© 1998 Neal Boortz
News Talk 750 WSB
Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.boortz.com
O.K. I’ll admit it. I’m a bit of a late-comer to this one. I almost had to be hit up-side the head with a 2 x 4 before I
began to form an understanding of what was going on here.
Like so many other Americans, I thought that I had quite enough to worry about just trying to protect my life, liberty
and property from the legislative activities of the Congress. The President could pontificate all he wants, but
nothing happens until Congress passes a law — and the Congress was in the hands of the Republicans.
Wrong.
My interest in the ability of the Executive Department to circumvent Congress came alive with the advent of the
Gore Tax. The FCC was ordering telecommunications companies to fork over a certain percentage of their
earnings, at the insistence of Al Gore, to help implement his plan to wire the nation’s classrooms for the Internet.
The phone companies, of course, just passed the tax along to consumers. [Note1] The Clintonistas were furious
when the telecommunications companies started itemizing this little tax on the phone bills! The feds had hoped to
hide this tax, just as they have so many others, but the phone companies had other ideas.
What was going on here? Suddenly my taxes had gone up, not because of any vote to raise taxes in the
congress, but because of a directive within the Executive Department. So – if one of Al Gore’s brilliant ideas can
end up costing me money without legislative action, where does it stop?
The dawn of the Gore Tax caused me to remember a document that someone had sent to me weeks ago. It was
a copy of Executive Order No. 13083 on “Federalism” signed by Bill Clinton in Birmingham, England on May 14,
- I had been told that there was something very sinister about EO 13083, but my first cursory look didn’t ring
any alarm bells. Perhaps it was time to drag that document out of the ever-growing “stack on the nightstand” and
take another look — this time more carefully.
What Are Executive Orders?
Basically, Executive Orders are directive signed by the President which are meant to set operating policy within
the Executive Department. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for Executive Orders. Article I of the
Constitution is very explicit in that it reserves legislative authority to the Legislative branch of the government, the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
Executive Orders certainly aren’t new. The first one was signed by George Washington. In the beginning,
however, Executive Orders were not issued for the purpose of setting public policy and implementing legislation
absent the participation of Congress.
Things have changed ….. for the worse.
After an Executive Order is signed it is published in the Federal Register. Thirty days later it effectively becomes
the law of the land.
Apparently Congress, if it acts within 30 days, can strike down an Executive Order. I say “apparently,” because,
again, the matter isn’t covered in our Constitution and it seems that legal and history scholars are just a wee bit
uncertain as to what to think about them. What’s worse, there is no evidence that members of our Congress pay
much attention to these directives anyway.
Just How Much Can a President Do by Executive Order?
As I said, at the beginning an Executive Order was simply meant to establish the rules by which the various
branches of the Executive Department would operate. Now it seems that a President can do just about anything
he wants to do with an Executive Order.
Here are just a few examples I gleaned from an article for FreeAmerica by Harry V. Martin.
Remember the Cherokee Trail of Tears? That’s right. Executive Order. President Andrew Jackson issued the
order to force the Cherokee Indians off their lands. The Indians went to the U.S. Supreme Court … and won! Well,
so much for the Courts. Jackson forced them off their lands anyway. That was when he issued his famous
statement “Let the Court try to enforce their ruling.”
Here’s something you probably didn’t know about Abraham Lincoln. He used an Executive Order during the Civil
War to shut down newspapers that didn’t see eye-to-eye with him over his war policies. He also suspended the
right to trial and the right to face your accuser. So much for the Constitution.
Then there’s Executive Order No. 9066. This one was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in December of 1941. Under
this Executive Order over 110,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry were taken from their homes and
forced into concentration camps. Their property was confiscated and sold by the federal government. This,
obviously, was in complete violation of basic constitutional principals. It didn’t seem to matter. Executive Order
9066 stood.
So … if you harbor any belief that Executive Orders are generally harmless; if you believe that only Congress is
authorized under our Constitution to make laws ….. think again. Thousands of Cherokee Indians and
Japanese-Americans might have wished to argue the point with you.
So, That Brings Us to Executive Order No. 13083
Two words. Power Grab. No, make that three words. Obscene power grab.
To understand Executive Order No. 13083, you need to understand something about the man who signed it, and
you need to understand the type of relationship that the writers of our Constitution intended between the States
and the federal government.
Bill Clinton is absolutely and completely in love with power. That means he is completely in love with government.
Government is, after all, the be-all and end-all when it comes to power. Government is the only entity in our society
that can use force to achieve its goals. This type of power makes Clinton just tremble with excitement.
Since he was a teenager, Clinton’s main focus has been to accumulate as much government power as he
possibly could. While your mom, and mine, were fishing copies of Playboy magazine from under our mattress,
Clinton’s (or was it still Blythe at that time?) mom was finding copies of Roll Call.
Clinton’s idea of an ideal woman would be a large-chested blond with full lips and a photographic memory of the
Federal Register, the publication site for all federal regulations.
Our founding fathers anticipated people just like Bill Clinton. They also anticipated politicians just like those that
inhabit the halls of congress today. To protect us from power-hungry politicians the authors of our Constitution
included the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That’s it! One very simple, easy to understand sentence. The anchor of our Bill of Rights.
If the Constitution does not specifically delegate a power or responsibility to the federal government, that power is
reserved for the States, or the people. That’s us. The intent here is clear. The States, from which the power
flows to the federal government, are telling the government through the Tenth Amendment “You are supposed to
take care of these specific things for us, and only these things. We’ll take care of the rest. We know our
constituents. We are much closer to our citizens than you will be up there in Washington. You tend to the tasks
we have given you, and we’ll take care of the rest.”
But that’s not the way things seem to be working now, is it? Instead of having the power flowing from the States
to Washington, it seems to be the other way around. The federal government is clearly trying to run the show.
Day after day the Congress passes laws and establishes mandates that are plainly outside of the limits set by the
Tenth Amendment.
Washington politicians know one thing for sure. If the Tenth Amendment were strictly adhered to, they would lose
incredible amounts of power to State and local politicians. There is no worse fate for a politician or bureaucrat
than the loss of power. None. Do you think these people work so hard to be reelected every two, four or six years
because they like the salary? Hardly. It’s the power. Pure, raw, unlimited power. [Note2]
And nobody enjoys this power more than Bill Clinton. It’s his fantasy — his dream come true.
Clinton was only two years into his first term when he saw the power of his Presidency all but vanish. The
American people, perhaps frightened by his first two years, which included an attempt to put 17% of our nation’s
economy under direct federal government control, decided that his power needed to be curbed. They did it the
only way they could. They gave his political adversaries the control of the Legislative branch of the government.
Clinton, then, needed a way to enact his social and political agenda without Congress. Executive Orders had
worked for other Presidents. Why not him? He realized that most of the far-reaching Executive Orders from
previous Presidents were issued in time of war — during a national emergency. Maybe he can get away with
using the same power while the nation is at peace!
The July 4th edition of The Los Angeles Times contained an article which detailed Clinton’s plans. He was going
to unleash a barrage of Executive Orders during the remainder of his term in an attempt to implement his agenda.
Clinton’s noxious spokesman, Rahm Emanuel, told the Times that Clinton wanted to work with the Congress, but
“if they chose partisanship, he’ll chose progress.” In other words, if the Republicans in Congress don’t go along
with Clinton’s legislative agenda (partisanship), he’ll just skip the Legislative Branch and go with his Executive
Orders (progress).
Perhaps one of the most shocking statements to come out of Clinton’s White House since he was elected came
from Clinton advisor Paul Begala. He was talking to the Times reporter about Executive Orders when he said
“Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!”
Before you go any further, read that quote a few more times. “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!” Say
it over and over to yourself. Do it again. Burn this little phrase into your subconscious. Now — let’s replace seven
of the words and see if it changes the meaning. Here we go. “Dictatorship! Kinda cool!”
Before we get into the details of Clinton’s Executive Order 13083, you need to know that Ronald Reagan also
issued an Executive Order on Federalism during his term. That Executive Order was very clear in its
reaffirmation of the principals of the Tenth Amendment. Reagan made it very clear that each and every
department of the Executive Branch was expected to make sure that any action they take is one that is within the
scope of the powers expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution. In other words, Reagan
stipulated that the Tenth Amendment is the law of the land. Abide by it.
The terms of Reagan’s Executive Order on Federalism didn’t suit Bill Clinton. On May 14th, 1998, while visiting
an economic conference in England, Clinton signed Executive Order 13083. The first thing this Executive Order
did was void Reagan’s previous Executive Order on Federalism. Reagan’s insistence on close adherence to the
principals of the Tenth Amendment were discarded with a stoke of Clinton’s pen. (“Stroke of the pen, law of the
land. Kinda cool!”)
Executive Order 13083 is, by far, the most sweeping Clinton Executive Order to date. Like Reagan’s, it was
entitled “Federalism.” But that’s where the similarity ends. In 13083 there is no specific reference to the Tenth
Amendment. Oh, to be sure, there is some wordage paying limited tribute to the concept of separation of
powers, but nothing so strong as in Reagan’s Executive Order.
The meat of 13083 is contained in Section 3(d). This is where the incredible Clinton federal power grab takes
form.
Section 3(d) of Executive Order 13083 reads:
(d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify
Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because
individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state
scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including:
(1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within
one State’s boundaries.
(2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a
significant amount of the harm occurs.
(3) When there is a need for uniform national standards.
(4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.
(5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties.
(6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business
activity will relocate to other States.
(7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high
costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of
State authorities.
(8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or
international obligations.
(9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments.
So .. What Could Clinton Do With 13083?
So, there you have it. The nine different circumstances under which, in the words of 13083, we find “matters of
national or multi-state scope … which may justify Federal action.”
Let’s just take a short look at a few of them.
Under Section 3(d)(3) federal action may be justified “When there is a need for uniform national standards.”
A need for national standards? What kind of national standards? Standards in what area? Do any of you know of
a provision in our Constitution that grants to the federal government to intervene in the affairs of the states upon a
claim for a need for uniform standards? If there is a need for national standards, who sets those standards? Is
there a role for Congress here? Or are these standards to be set by the Executive Branch?
Here’s an example of how the Clintonistas might use this provision. Let’s say that one State establishes some
specific standards for auto emissions. Al Gore and Clinton think that these standards are the bees knees. They
decide that all of the states should have similar standards … for the environment, you know. Clinton simply uses
the provisions of 13083, Section 3(d)(3) to order federal agencies to compel the other states to adopt the
designated standards, or else.
What about Section 3(d)(4)? “When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional
burdens on the taxpayer.” This section is cleverly worded to make it look as if the Clintonistas are looking out for
the poor overburdened taxpayers. It is really a blank check for power. Under this section the federal government
may exercise its power whenever it can prove that a certain task or function can be performed by the central
government cheaper than it can be done by the states. This will save the poor taxpayers money. It may rob them
of their freedom. It may move the government even further out of their reach. But it will save them money. Let’s
see … a nice little federal police force could certainly operate with more efficiency than all of those local police
departments, couldn’t it? We could combine all of those little, inefficient State crime labs into large state-of-the art
regional crime labs. Think of the money that would save the poor taxpayers!
Moving on, now to Section 3(d)(5) ” When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties.”
What rights and liberties are they talking about? The legal procedures and protections are already in place to
protect the rights and liberties enumerated in the constitution. But what about all of those extra rights and
liberties that seem to keep popping up lately. The right to a living wage. The right to a home. The right to a job.
The right to health care. Could the Clintonistas assert that the people are not being afforded their right to a job
and force the states to enact job training and placement programs? Different states have different qualifications
and coverage areas for Medicaid. This section would certainly allow the feds to step in and force all states to live
up to some standard set in the Executive Branch.
Then there’s Section 3(d)(6) “When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears
that regulated business activity will relocate to other States.”
This one is a real whopper. This gives the agencies of the federal government the authority to exercise federal
power in any situation where they think that businesses might move from one State to another due to various
State policies.
Here’s a way this section might be used by the Clintonistas.
As every realizes, Clinton owes his election and reelection to labor unions. They spent millions of dollars on both
of his campaigns. Without union help Clinton would have moved back to Arkansas in 1996 (be still, my heart).
Some States have what we call “right-to-work” laws. These states severely restrict the ability of unions to force
workers to join the union in order to hold a job. States with these right-to-work laws are quite a bit more attractive
to some industries than States that support forced union membership. Well, there is your classic situation where
a state would be reluctant to impose a regulation … a law allowing forced union membership … because it might
mean that one of the affected businesses would move to another state. Enter the Executive Branch of the
Imperial Federal Government of the United States to force an end to the right-to-work law. What a wonderful
payback to the unions for their election help! [Note 3]
One of the benefits of having fifty separate States, with fifty different and distinct governments is that we can learn
from the different policies and legislative actions that the various states take to attract business, fight crime, and
preserve liberty for its citizens. This section of 13083 seems to give to the Executive Branch of the federal
government the power and authority to scatter out around the country in an effort to make sure that all States
adopt similar tax and regulatory structures so that one State won’t necessarily have an advantage over another
when it comes to attracting business. This also has the effect of discouraging, or outright outlawing any innovative
State policies that might prove embarrassing to Washington bureaucrats.
Wouldn’t this also be a great way for a President to reward a state that went for him in an election? He could send
his Executive Branch storm troopers into less-friendly neighboring states to make sure that they don’t enact any
laws that give them a competitive economic advantage.
You think that wouldn’t happen? Three words. Trail of Tears.
O.K. Let’s take a stab at Section 3(d) (7) “When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would
undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the
regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities.”
Could this section be interpreted to allow any agency under the Executive Branch; the EPA, for instance, to step
in and enforce any regulatory goals it desired at the State level without any action by congress? Could the EPA
just make a determination that its regulatory goals could not be fulfilled by the States because of costs and
resources?
Another thing … does this mean that Clinton could decide, on his own, to enforce any new environmental
standards dreamed up by, say, the United Nations? Would the legislative branch of the U.S. Government have a
role here?
The Tenth Amendment does not grant to the Federal government the power to assume duties and responsibilities
just because various State governments don’t have the resources to meet some ill-defined federal regulatory
goals. The Tenth Amendment is specific. If the power is not specifically granted to the feds, or specifically denied
to the States, the federal government has no authority.
Again, you say this couldn’t happen? Two words. Japanese internment.
Sure. The wording on many of these sections of 13083 is vague. Vague and unclear wording gives the Imperial
Federal Government wide discretion in deciding just what powers it is going to assume, and how that power is
going to be exercised.
Getting the Interest of Congress
EO 13083 seemed to show up on the radar screens of quite a few people before anyone in Congress really took
note. I first learned some of the details through my visits to WorldNetDaily.
As soon as I started discussing 13083 on the air, and including some of my notes in Nealz Nuze, listeners and
readers started copying my comments and forwarding them to various Congressmen and Senators, asking for a
response. (If you folks keep doing this I’m going to have to start watching my spelling.)
Of particular interest was the response of Georgia’s Democratic Senator Max Cleland. For a few days Cleland
was responding to 13083 inquiries by indicating that it was of no great concern since “…. it only affected the
Executive Branch.” The inquiries kept coming in, however, and Cleland actually had pay a little attention to the
situation. This must have been particularly tough for someone who has spent their entire career thus far fawning
over Clinton.
After a few days Cleland started to change his tune. This was the response to inquiries that Cleland was sending
as of July 10, 1998:
“Executive Order 13083 sets forth Administration policy on federal-state relations and supersedes previous orders
on this issue (Executive Order 12612 and Executive Order 12875). You may be interested to know that I have
heard from several constituents on this issue. Like you, they voiced concerns that Executive Order 13083
authorizes unprecedented federal regulatory intervention into matters under the jurisdiction of the States and
thereby usurps powers reserved for the States under the Constitution. I appreciate and understand your
apprehension and frustration, and I have therefore written President Clinton and requested his detailed response
to your concerns.” As you may know, executive orders can be repealed by the Congress. I am a strong
supporter of States’ rights.”
Believe me, that’s pretty strong for Cleland.
Two Georgia Republican Congressmen, Mac Collins and Bob Barr, have really taken the lead in the 13083
situation.
Collins, after receiving several calls and e-mail messages on the issue, asked Chris Ptomey, an aide in his D.C.
office to look into the situation. The memo that Ptomey wrote to Collins on 13083 was very telling. He wrote:
“I think I have a handle on this one, now. It’s basically a power-grab by the Clinton Administration. This
Executive Order (EO) allows the Federal government almost limitless authority to promulgate regulations in
state and local jurisdictions currently protected by the Tenth Amendment.
“While this EO uses much of the language found in a 1987 EO issued by President Reagan, it turns the
Reagan policy (to limit Federal activities) on its head. The way that the Clinton EO accomplishes this is by
broadly defining “matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action.” These would include any
matter of concern that is not confined by a single state’s boundaries, any matter involving a “need for national
standards,” any matter in which “decentralization increases the costs of government,” any matter in which
“States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity
will relocate to other states,” and any matter related to “Federally owned or managed property or natural
resources, trust obligations, or international organizations.”
“As you can see, this EO basically revokes the Tenth Amendment limitations of the legitimate scope of the
Federal government. It represents a serious threat to State and local governments’ authority, to the powers of
the Congress, and to individual liberties. Following are a couple of examples of possible executive actions
that this would allow.
“(1) The President could implement the UN’s Kyoto Climate Treaty through executive department and agency
regulations. The “international obligations” clause would allow this WITHOUT Senate ratification.
“(2) Under this provision, the War Powers Act would, essentially, be revoked allowing the President to have
nearly unlimited authority to send troops anywhere, at any time, for any reason.
“(3) Under the “interstate” activity clause, criminal law and gun control measures could be implemented by the
Justice Department, usurping the powers of the States and the Congress.”
So, add the scenarios outlined in Ptomey’s memo the various scenarios I set forth. Are you starting to get some idea of the amazing power grab that Clinton has pulled off?
And Just What Do We Call This?
A quick question. What do you call a system of government where the Head-of-State has the power and authority to write laws on his own and to have those laws enforced.
The answer is simple. You call it a Dictatorship.
Legislation Has Been Introduced ….
On Wednesday, July 14th, Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced HR 4196, the purpose of which is to
reverse Clinton’s Federalism Executive Order 13083.
Could it actually be that the Legislative branch of our government is actually going to take some manner of
positive action to stop this breathtaking Clinton power grab?
Freedom is on life support. Clinton wants to pull the plug. 1
Let’s keep their feet to the fire. Nothing less than the future of the world’s greatest experiment in freedom and
liberty is on the line.
You have my permission to distribute this essay, poor as it is, to anyone you chose so long as you include the following: ©
1998, Neal Boortz, WSB Radio. http://www.boortz.com)
[Note1] There is nothing odd about this. All business and corporate taxes are passed through to some individual, either an
owner, shareholder, employee or customer. Politicians have learned that they can hide the true level of taxation through the scam of business fees and taxes.
[Note 2] Harry Browne, the 1996 Presidential Candidate under the Libertarian banner, wrote in his book “Why Government Doesn’t Work” wrote about government’s one unique asset: “What separates government from the rest of society isn’t its size, its disregard for profit, its foresight or its scope. The distinctive feature of government is coercion — the use of force and the threat of force to win obedience. This is how government differs from every other agency society. The others persuade; government compels.”
[Note 3] This reminds me of another Executive Order, one of the first signed by Clinton when he became President. George Bush had issued an Executive Order ordering the various branches of government to post a notice to all workers reminding them that they had a right to a refund of all union dues which were used to support political causes with which the member didn’t agree. Unions, of course, were not happy. They realized that a very large number of union members didn’t have the same degree of fondness for the Democratic Party that permeates union leadership. As soon as Clinton became President he issued an Executive Order telling the various federal departments that they no longer had to post that notification.
UPDATE ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 13083 — July 16th.
The White House is feeling the heat. Fueled largely by talk radio, people across the country are burying their Congressmen
and Senators under a barrage of e-mail and phone calls. As you can see above some of these Congressmen are beginning to
register their concerns with the Imperial White House.
In addition, The “Big Seven,” a group of local government agencies such as the National Governor’s Conference, have made
it clear to the Clinton White House that they are less than pleased with the wording of 13083, and the fact that they were not
consulted before it was issued.
Well .. Clinton seems to have blinked. It has been reported that at least one Administration has issued the well-worn
standard excuse: “We made a mistake.” Other reports say that Clinton is on the verge of signing yet another Executive
Order delaying the implementation of 13083 for ninety days. We are told that this will be so that the White House can
“consult” with State and local governments on the matter.
The lesson? When the people truly get upset about something, and when they let their representatives know, things happen.
Further Update
The implementation of E.O.13083 has been halted. The furor that was initiated larely by talk radio finally reached the
lawmakers … and the lawmakers made it clear that they were less than amused. Clinton agreed to delay implementation and consult with local and state governments, after which the EO would be re-written.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 5, 1998
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13095
SUSPENSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13083
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in
order to enable full and adequate consultation with State and local elected officials, their representative
organizations, and other interested parties, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13083, entitled “Federalism,”
is suspended.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 5, 1998.
@@@@@@@@
url for this following article……
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/11/11/154219
@@@@@@@@
Executive Orders
url for this page…..
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo.html#top
Disposition Tables
January 24, 1953 — March 7, 2000
These tables contain information about, but not the text of, Executive orders
beginning with those signed by President Eisenhower. They are arranged
according to Presidential administration and year of signature.
Herbert Hoover
1929-1933
EO’s 5075-6070
1011 EO’s issued
Franklin D. Roosevelt
1933-1945
EO’s 6071-9537
3728 EO’s issued
Harry S. Truman
1945-1953
EO’s 9538-10431
896 EO’s issued
Dwight D. Eisenhower
1953-1961
EO’s 10432-10913
486 EO’s issued
John F. Kennedy
1961-1963
EO’s 10914-11127
214 EO’s issued
Lyndon B. Johnson
1963-1969
EO’s 11128-11451
324 EO’s issued
Richard Nixon
1969-1974
EO’s 11452-11797
346 EO’s issued
Gerald R. Ford
1974-1977
EO’s 11798-11966
169 EO’s issued
Jimmy Carter
1977-1981
EO’s 11967-12286
320 EO’s issued
Ronald Reagan
1981-1989
EO’s 12287-12667
381 EO’s issued
George Bush
1989-1993
EO’s 12668-12833
166 EO’s issued
William J. Clinton
1993-Present
EO’s 12834- 13147
314 EO’s issued
These tables are compiled and maintained by Editors of the Office of the Federal
Register and include the following information:
Executive order number;
Date of signing by the President;
Federal Register volume, page number, and issue date;
Title;
Amendments (if any); and
Current status (where applicable)
All entries in these tables are subject to change, as new Executive orders,
Presidential proclamations, other Presidential documents, rules and regulations,
notices, and public laws often amend or otherwise affect them.
These are informational listings, not provided as definitive legal authority.
About Executive Orders
Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which
the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal
Government.
The text of Executive orders appears in the daily Federal Register as each
Executive order is signed by the President and received by the Office of the
Federal Register. The text of Executive orders beginning with Executive Order
7316 of March 13, 1936, also appears in the sequential editions of Title 3 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
For Executive orders published after January 1, 1994, see GPO Access’ online
Federal Register.
Elias, below this line is what you can find by clicking on the Clinton link on the above listing…….
1993 – E.O. 12834 – E.O. 12890 (57 Executive orders issued)
1994 – E.O. 12891 – E.O. 12944 (54 Executive orders issued)
1995 – E.O. 12945 – E.O. 12984 (40 Executive orders issued)
1996 – E.O. 12985 – E.O. 13033 (49 Executive orders issued)
1997 – E.O. 13034 – E.O. 13071 (38 Executive orders issued)
1998 – E.O. 13072 – E.O. 13109 (38 Executive orders issued)
1999 – E.O. 13110 – E.O. 13144 (35 Executive orders issued)
2000 – E.O. 13145 – E.O. 13147 (3 Executive orders issued)
@@@@@@@@@@@
http://216.46.238.34/articles/?a=1999/1/6/121454
The link above has a list of executive orders.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Willed Power
“A great number of congressmen and senators quietly appreciate the assumed presidential authority
to create and enact legislation because it allows them to see their goals accomplished without having
to assume political responsibility.” Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas.
( ………
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/11/09/p1s1.htm
)
Looking at that quote by Congressman Paul, three words beg a little light. “…assumed presidential authority…”
One quickly infers that the first of those words implies the taking up of something which was not designated constitutionally. In everyday routines we all tend to do this for expediency and for unfounded license to “act”. When a president does this he can be effectively skirting constitutional balances of power in the nation’s final legal document.
We wanted to look at his ability to do that and the ability of the Judicial and Legislative branches to respond.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
THE BILL ITSELF, HR2655
HR 2655 IH
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2655
To restore the separation of powers between the
Congress and the President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 30, 1999
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on International Relations, and in addition
to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the separation of powers between the
Congress and the President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the Separation of Powers Restoration Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States. (2) A Supreme Court justice stated,The
doctrine of the separation of powers was
adopted by the convention of 1787 not to
promote efficiency but to preclude the
exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose
was not to avoid friction, but, by means
of the inevitable friction incident to the
distribution of the governmental powers
among three departments, to save the
people from autocracy.’ Myers v. United
States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926)
(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
(3) James Madison, quoting
Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47,There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.' (4) Article I of the Constitution provides, All legislative powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United
States.’
(5) A congressional committee print has
noted that, [b]ecause the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.' 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957). (6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take,Congress
has not thereby lost its exclusive
constitutional authority to make laws
necessary and proper to carry out the
powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.' (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)). (7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law. SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS. (a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed. (b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY- (1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect-- (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date. (2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the termnational
emergency’ means a general declaration
of emergency made by the President or
any other officer or employee of the
executive branch.
(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO
DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that
any Act of Congress in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act grants to the President or
any other officer or employee of the executive
branch the power to declare a national
emergency, such power is hereby divested to
the Congress alone.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR
PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The
President shall include with each Presidential
order a statement of the specific statutory or
constitutional provision which in fact grants the
President the authority claimed for such action.
(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING
ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not
include the statement required by subsection (a)
is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is
issued under authority granted by a
congressional enactment.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL
ORDERS.
(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL
ORDERS- A Presidential order neither
constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited
in its application and effect to the executive
branch.
(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not
apply to–
(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense
against the United States, except in cases
of impeachment;
(2) an order given to military personnel
pursuant to duties specifically related to
actions taken as Commander in Chief of
the Armed Forces; or
(3) a Presidential order citing the specific
congressional enactment relied upon for
the authority exercised in such order
and–
(A) issued pursuant to such
authority;
(B) commensurate with the limit
imposed by the plain language of
such authority; and
(C) not issued pursuant to a
ratified or unratified treaty or
bilateral or multilateral agreement
which–
(i) violates the ninth or tenth
amendments to the
Constitution; or
(ii) makes a delegation of
power to a foreign
government or international
body when no such
delegating authority exists
under the Constitution.
SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE
PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH
IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS
INTEGRITY.
The following persons may bring an action in an
appropriate United States court to challenge the
validity of any Presidential order which exceeds
the power granted to the President by the
relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution:
(1) CONGRESS AND ITS
MEMBERS- The House of
Representatives, the Senate, any Senator,
and any Representative to the House of
Representatives, if the challenged
Presidential order–
(A) infringes on any power of
Congress;
(B) exceeds any power granted by
a congressional enactment; or
(C) violates section 4 because it
does not state the statutory
authority which in fact grants the
President the power claimed for
the action taken in such
Presidential order.
(2) STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS- The highest
governmental official of any State,
commonwealth, district, territory, or
possession of the United States, or any
political subdivision thereof, or the
designee of such person, if the challenged
Presidential order infringes on the powers
afforded to the States under the
Constitution.
(3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any
person aggrieved in a liberty or property
interest adversely affected directly by the
challenged Presidential order.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.
In this Act, the term `Presidential order’ means–
(1) any Executive order, Presidential
proclamation, or Presidential directive;
and
(2) any other Presidential or Executive
action by whatever name described
purporting to have normative effect
outside the executive branch which is
issued under the authority of the President
or any other officer or employee of the
executive branch.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
How do we strip Clinton of the power he’s been usurping? How can you and I take the power of Clinton’s un-American activities away from him? Easy. We just insist to our Congressmen one and all that they must join Representative Paul, (R/Tx.), as co-sponsors of his bill, HR-2655.
That one bill can do this:
1) Prevent Clinton from re-naming laws which Congress has previously rejected and denied
2)Prevent Clinton from passing “secret laws”, such as PDD-25.
3)Eliminate un-ratified treaties of international scope, such as those Clinton has signed with NATO and the UN.
4)Prevent Clinton from secretly assigning our troops to the United Nations without Congressional approval.
5)Un-do all previous presidential declarations of “States-of-Emergency” which waive the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and permit US troops to be used against US citizens on our soil. (Think: Waco!)
6)Declare State of Emergency which suspends the Constitution and Bill of Rights without a two-thirds vote by Congress.
7) Prevent Clinton from granting un-specified powers to FEMA and Justice Department Law Enforcement Agencies to act without Congressional Review.
8)Prevent Clinton from mandating the subjection of our troops, (and large numbers of civilians) to un-tested inoculations against Anthrax with vaccines which are not ready for use under even the most lax standards of the FDA.
Resources:
NewsMax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/11/11/154219
Article by: James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.
November 12, 1999
@@@@@@@@@@
Clintonian ‘tyranny’ rankles Hill
GOP lawmakers resist what they see as a presidential proclivity to bypass Congress and rule by executive order.
Francine Kiefer
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
Is America’s chief executive governing more like a king than a president?
It’s been a mark of the Clinton administration to rule by executive fiat, circumventing a hostile Congress by signing presidential orders that affect everything from patients’ rights to land conservation to a war against Yugoslavia. With one year to go and a presidential legacy at stake, the White House plans to aggressively pursue this strategy, dubbing it “Project Podesta” after the chief of staff who’s spearheading it.
But this stroke-of-the-pen style of governing infuriates Republicans in Congress, who see it as part of a runaway presidency that has been gaining speed for decades. Concerned that the Constitution is being trampled and their power usurped, lawmakers are now considering ways to rein in what they see as overuse of presidential directives.
“We’ve come a long way toward tyranny, and the Hill – I hope and pray – is finally waking up,” says William Olson, the author of a recent study on the subject. He testified before Congress last month, when the House held two hearings on legislation to restrict the president’s use of executive orders. It is the first serious look Congress has taken at this issue since the 1970s, says Olson.
Particularly galling to lawmakers is the president’s unilateral action on conservation. They point to a 1997 executive order
protecting America’s heritage rivers as an example of a Clinton takeover of state and congressional rights. It threatens citizens’ property rights and redirects federal funds in ways not authorized by Congress, charges Rep. Jack Metcalf (R) of Washington.
More recently, Mr. Clinton called for regulations to protect 40 million acres of national forest land, involving restrictions just short of designating the acreage as wilderness. “We allow the president to in effect legislate through executive orders and proclamations. I find this trend deeply disturbing,” said Representative Metcalf in testimony last month.
The Constitution speaks only vaguely about the president’s powers, designating Congress as the body that makes laws and the executive branch as the one that carries them out. Nowhere does it define or limit the president’s power to rule by executive order.
Rule-by-decree goes back to George Washington, who issued benign proclamations such as the nation’s first Thanksgiving Day and more constitutionally risky ones such as a declaration of US neutrality in a European war.
The practice blossomed under Theodore Roosevelt, the start of a long line of presidents who came out from under the shadow of Congress to make their own mark as national leaders.
But the record holder for executive orders issued – 3,723 – is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a head of state who faced economic
depression and a world war. In his 1933 inaugural address, F.D.R. said the urgent needs of the day could justify a “temporary departure” from the normal balance of powers. Perhaps his most notorious executive order was to hold US citizens and residents of Japanese descent in internment camps during World War II.
The number of executive orders issued by Clinton pales in comparison. Mr. Olson’s study shows Clinton had issued 304
executive orders as of August, fewer than two-term Presidents Reagan (381) and Eisenhower (452). The count does not
include directives, memos, and proclamations.
It’s not the number of orders that’s important, however, as much as their scope. “Most presidential orders are trivial” says Terry Moe, an expert at Stanford University in California. “But orders with real substance have gone up over time.”
Whether the trend is good or bad depends on one’s views. Mr. Moe notes that former Presidents Truman, Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson laid the foundation for the Civil Rights Act with executive orders relating to racial discrimination.
Of course, successive presidents can overturn the orders of their predecessors – and they do. So can the
courts, but they have rarely acted against presidents (a federal court, however, did strike down a 1995
Clinton order on replacement strikers.)
That leaves Congress. Critics of the current system admit they’ve been willing accomplices in this power tilt.
“A great number of congressmen and senators quietly appreciate the assumed presidential authority to create
and enact legislation because it allows them to see their goals accomplished without having to assume political
responsibility,” said Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas recently.
In July, Congressman Paul introduced the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which calls for restricting a
president’s power to issue executive orders.
Moe is skeptical that Congress can do much in this area because the body of law to which presidents can turn for their authority is now huge. He expects presidents to keep pushing the boundaries, especially when faced with opposition Congresses.
As for Clinton, he’ll likely continue to advance his agenda through such directives. “He’ll make some progress on a variety of fronts and nickel-and-dime Congress to death,” says Moe.
The URL for this article is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/11/09/fp1s1-csm.shtml
