Courage to Fight Executive Orders

Courage to Fight Executive Orders
by Michael R. Allen

Tuesday, September 7, 1999

Perhaps you have seen the frightening television ad, in which Bob Dole tells the audience that it takes courage to talk about some things. It's too bad that he is not speaking out against Executive Orders (E.O.), because then more people might care about their freedom.

To speak out against the profligate issuing of Executive Orders in recent years shouldn't be an act of courage; it should be a no- brainer for anyone serious about liberty.

Executive Orders and their close kin, Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs), have been around since America's constitution was ratified. Their initial purpose was very pedestrian: a way for the president to accomplish routine tasks, like hiring employees in his office, without having a congressional vote every time. In other words, consider EOs and PDDs executive tools for housekeeping.

How did they ever become the tools of tyranny?

Like many other features of the government given to this land by the Constitution, the EO/PDD feature did not prove to be restricted enough. As the presidency took on the role of actually making policy, EOs proved an easy way to bypass stagnant (or stubborn) lawmakers. Without having to put something to a vote by the people's representatives, the president could get his way and make sure radical proposals barely got noticed.

The Congress may have its power to write laws usurped through EOs, but it has one last check -- however feeble it is -- against executive power. A comment period of ninety days after the issuing of an executive order is allowed, and a congressman can file a complaint against the offending EO. This complaint feature doesn't normally prevent bad EOs from being issued, but it has been useful to draw attention to recent EOs.

In 1998, President Clinton wrote EO 13083, supposedly to reaffirm federalism. EO 13083 instead gave the president broad powers to suspend the few remaining rights of States against the national government. Hundreds of thousands of concerned patriots flooded their representatives with messages, and Clinton retracted the EO in the face of protest.

Unfortunately, he might strike again on federalism -- that is, if he even needs to.

Clinton's PDD 25 allows him to put American soldiers in the command of the United Nations. EO 12919 established an industrial resources preparedness plan that gives the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) direction over private industry. More recent EOs have undermined the internet's freedom to operate and have allowed us to be further regulated by international organizations.

More than any other, EO 12656, "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities," already gives Mr. Bill the dictatorial powers he wants. It gives federal agencies the power to command all law enforcement. It puts local policeman to work for the United Nations. It allows for any citizen's assets to be frozen and travel rights rescinded. Of course, these horrible controls are contingent on the occurrence of a "national emergency."

Since the "national emergency" is declared by the president, one imagines that some pretty bad things could lie ahead. A "Y2K" problem, real or contrived, might be enough cover for Clinton to call a "national emergency." Under PDD 63, Clinton's administration created the Infrastructure Protection Agency specifically to "manage" any problems next year. Agencies that would aid in the saving of America are only those incorruptible institutions including the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Defense -- agencies that are proper for warfare and police action.

Even if Bill Clinton never uses his emergency powers, who can one trust with dictatorial powers? Al Gore? Surely not the son of an ex-CIA director who wrote a few EOs of his own, George W. Bush? After all, EO 12565 was written by a Republican administration.

Ronald Reagan's legacy is looking more wobbly every day. Any president who would issue an executive order for anything beyond a cheese-and-pepperoni pizza deserves scrutiny. Any president who would grant himself, his predecessors, and the extra-constitutional UN so much power should impeached.

Of course, time runs one way. Citizens of 1999 have to live with the fact that we are governed by over 13,000 executive orders in addition to that legislative tool of tyranny, the US Code. The people need to be educated about what powers their president has acquired. Reading the text of the executive orders should give them the courage they need to demand the impeachment of future executive miscreants. The sooner the truth is known, the sooner America can rid itself this post-constitutional hangover.

www.american-partisan.com