EXECUTIVE ORDERS July 10, 1998

FULL TEXT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13083

JULY 16, 1998 UPDATE

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 two-by-four 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 wanted, but nothing could happen until Congress passed a law--and the Congress was in the hands of the Republicans.

Wrong.

My interest in the ability of the Executive Branch to circumvent Congress came alive with the advent of the "Gore Tax." The Federal Communications Commission 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 Branch. 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, 1998. I had been told that there was something very sinister about Executive Order No.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 directives signed by the President which are meant to set operating policy within the Executive Branch. 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, in the beginning an Executive Order was simply meant to establish the rules by which the various departments of the Executive Branch 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 Free America 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's" 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 to the States, or to 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 (health care) 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 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 could get away with using the same power while the nation is at peace!

The July 4, 1998 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 choose 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 power 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.

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.

[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 16, 1998

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.