Alabama Right News: Nov 20, 2010

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Times: NKorea has new nuclear enrichment facility

from Headlines from the Associated Press

Times: NKorea has new nuclear enrichment facility: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The New York Times reports that North Korea has secretly and with unusual speed built a large new facility to enrich uranium...."

Anyone supporting Rahm Emanuel for Mayor over Carol Moseley Braun is racist because they just don’t want a nice black woman to be Mayor of Chicago.

from HillBuzz by kevindujan01

Anyone supporting Rahm Emanuel for Mayor over Carol Moseley Braun is racist because they just don’t want a nice black woman to be Mayor of Chicago.: "Do you see how fun it is going to be to use Rahm Emanuel’s own scripts and tactics against him? Anyone opposing Obama in Chicago is called racist because Obama is part black. Rahm Emanuel is now trying to keep the first black woman from being elected Mayor of Chicago. That’s racist AND sexist by [...]"

Report: Would-be plane bombers post attack details

from Headlines from the Associated Press

Report: Would-be plane bombers post attack details: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- Terrorist monitoring groups say Al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula claims its attempts to blow up package bombs on two cargo flights headed to the U.S. cost only $4,200...."

Report: Al Qaeda Plans Attack On German Parliament

Well now that the cat maybe out of the bag, are they gonna change plans? RTTN:Terrorist outfit Al-Qaeda and associated groups are believed to be planning an attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin that houses the German parliament, the...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/205070.php

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Taliban Releases Statement After Obama Announcement: NATO Headed to Defeat in Afghanistan

The Taliban were quick to release their own statement today after Barack Obama announced a goal of transitioning security in Afghanistan by 2014.

Dawn reported:

The Taliban on Saturday said that Nato was heading for defeat in Afghanistan after the alliance announced plans to begin withdrawing troops from the country from next year.

"It has become clear that after nine years of occupation, the invaders are doomed towards the same fate as those that tread this path before them," the hardline group said in an emailed statement.

"Their troop surges, their new strategies, their new generals, their new negotiations, and their new propagandas have been of no avail," it added.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/11/taliban-releases-statement-after-obama-announcement-nato-headed-to-defeat-in-afghanistan/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Open Thread

from Moonbattery by Van Helsing

Open Thread: "

From Freaking News, on a tip from Rich.

GOP: DREAM Act Accepts Criminals

from Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com by foxnewsonline@foxnews.com

GOP: DREAM Act Accepts Criminals: "As Obama pushes legislation that would allow certain illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents, Republicans reveal the DREAM act could allow those with criminal records to gain citizenship

Governor Perry: Take TSA Patters and Put Them on Mexican Border Detail

from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

Governor Perry: Take TSA Patters and Put Them on Mexican Border Detail: "

Perry ’12

Governor Rick Perry told FOX Business Network that the federal government ought to take the TSA gropers and put them on the border with Mexico instead.

The Hill reported:

The incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association suggested Friday that TSA screeners would be more help securing the nation’s border with Mexico.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday on Fox Business Network that states need to “push Washington back into that box that we call the United States constitution,” but said the federal government needs to follow through on its responsibility of securing the U.S. border.

“Just in the last two weeks, I’ve had five of my citizens who’ve lost their lives on that border with Mexico, and that is an irresponsible lack of focus by our federal government,” Perry said, calling the federal security an “abject failure.”

When asked if, in the wake of the TSA invasive pat-down controversy, he’d replace TSA screeners as states are allowed under federal law, Perry had an idea.

“How about we take all those TSA agents and put them on the border with Mexico where they can do some security there?” Perry said. “That’s where we need security substantially more than in our airports and what we’re seeing out of this bunch.”

ACORN’s ‘Texas for Obama’ Labor Ally Could Provide Cover to Rebuild Discredited Organization

from - Big Government by Kevin Mooney

ACORN’s ‘Texas for Obama’ Labor Ally Could Provide Cover to Rebuild Discredited Organization: "

Political operatives connected with renamed ACORN affiliates are in position to help swing close, competitive races for left-leaning candidates in the 2012 elections, according to former insiders and policy analysts who are familiar with the network’s operations.

An ambitious rebranding scheme that began earlier this year has now accelerated to include affiliates in at least 12 states. The bankruptcy filing the organization slyly submitted on Election Day is properly viewed as “a head fake” and a “public relations gimmick” arranged to distract attention away from the partisan political activities of renamed affiliates, sources say.

It is worth recalling that the organization known in full as the Association of Community Activists for Reform Now had initially denied reports that it would be dropping its tarnished name in press statements released in the summer of 2009. Wade Rathke, who founded ACORN in 1970, had announced on his blog that ACORN International, one of many affiliate organizations, had officially changed its name to “Community Organizations International.” Former board members who came together under the banner of ACORN 8 in response to an embezzlement scandal saw the move as a possible opener to a larger rebranding effort.

Scott Levenson, a spokesman for organization’s national leadership, issued a statement claiming that the name has not been dropped and that Rathke is no longer connected with ACORN.

“ACORN is not changing its name,” he declared. “ACORN International, is a five-year old organization from which ACORN withdrew a year ago as part of an overall restructuring process and requested that they stop using the ACORN name, which they have now done. Wade Rathke was fired as Chief Organizer of ACORN in June 2008.”

Just after ACORN’s leadership announced that it was dissolving its network on April 1 of this year, ACORN Housing, the national affiliate at the center of an undercover videotape investigation, renamed itself Affordable Housing Centers of America. Several state affiliates have now followed suit with at least one notable exception that has attracted a paucity of press coverage.

The ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center (ACLOC), which is registered in Louisiana and also maintains a strong presence in Texas, has served as a major conduit for political operations and could play a prominent role in the 2012 elections. The affiliate was prominently mentioned in a House Oversight Committee report that probed into ACORN’s financial transactions and political activities.

“According to a document provided by former ACORN employees, the ACORN Community Labor Organizing Center (“ACLOC”) led important campaigns including the Texas for Obama Campaign,” the report said. “According to the document, ACLOC raised 1.3 million dollars from political campaigns and delivered the funds directly to ACORN offices. The document noted, `[d]oes the ACORN association board want Wade [Rathke] to be this intimately involved in coordinating campaigns this close to ACORN?’ACORN readily acknowledged its partisan behavior.”

ACLOS is categorized as an “active” organization on the Louisiana Secretary of State’s web site, but it is also listed as being “Not in Good Standing for Failure to File Annual Report.”

Jacques Berry, the press secretary for Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, said in an interview that ACLOS and other ACORN affiliates that have declined to submit their report could potentially lose their legal status.

“We are not an enforcement agency,” he explained. “We just change their designation of an organization if they miss their annual report anniversary and if they miss it three years in a row then we revoke their legal ability to do business in Louisiana. The annual report is not a financial document. It just includes basic information like name, address and if there’s any changes to any changes to pertinent information such as the makeup officers. Even if no changes are made, they need to file every year. We don’t get into financials at all that’s for the state department of revenue.”

ACLOC was founded in 2005 for purpose of building and fostering partnerships between community activists and organized labor, according to the group’s now defunct web site. In Canada, ACLOC provided “basic training” for recruits with Service Employee International Union (SEIU) who then moved into “Organizer Apprentice” positions. ACLOC has also partnered with the SEIU in Houston and Boston.

The ACORN labor group has also allied with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to provide “community support” for daycare providers. It also joined with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) “to put pressure” on a grocery store chain in Arizona to allow for unionization.

There is no escaping the strong nexus that exists between ACORN and organized labor. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the current ranking minority member on the House Oversight Committee, has reported extensively on this partnership and how it relates to partisan political activities.

“SEIU/ACORN has leveraged its size, influence, and wealth to advance its policies and agendas through a complicated web of political connections, backroom negotiations, public relations, intimidation and litigation,” a February 2010 report observed. “SEIU/ACORN has spent millions of dollars and man hours supporting union friendly federal and state candidates and legislation. These connections are then used to entice employers into neutrality agreements with offers of government subsidies and union concessions.”

All told, organized labor has contributed over $10 million to ACORN, since 2005 with the SEIU contributing about $8.7 million of this sum including over $222,000 in 2009 alone, according to Labor Department records.

ACLOC was the single largest recipient of donations from the SEIU to ACORN and its many affiliates between 2005 and 2008, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) LM-2 disclosure forms show.

The SEIU donations recorded on LM-2’s show the ACLOC Apprentice Program received $630,457 in 2008, $780,300 in 2007, $1.5 million in 2006, and $834,841 in 2005.

Going forward, the ACORN affiliates that have dropped the tarnished name may have greater flexibility and dexterity to solicit renewed financial support from long-times allies within organized labor and liberal foundations, notes Matthew Vadum, a senior editor and analyst with the Capital Research Center (CRC).

“This bankruptcy filing is really a public relations head fake,” he said. “ACORN is altering its organizational structure because the name has been sullied and damaged. But it remains a potent force.”

Moreover, he added, the congressional funding ban that went into effect last year is now lifted.

The lead ACORN organization registered in Arkansas and New Orleans has in the past received $3 million from the Marguerite Casey Foundation, $821,000 from the Robin Hood Foundation, $595,000 from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and $65,000 from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, according to CRC.

Other foundations have contributed to ACORN’s affiliates.

Project Vote, the affiliate at center of on-going voter registration fraud allegations and investigations, has received $4,047,500 from the Rockefeller Family Fund, $1,460,801 from the Tides Foundation, and $2,643,100 from the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, financial records show.

“The professional Left didn’t throw tons of cash at ACORN each cycle because of the group’s lofty ideals,” notes Bret Jacobson, a partner with Maverick Strategies based in Washington D.C. “ACORN was hired out for bare-knuckle, ground-level politics. They picked their fights shrewdly and in many cases played a key role in pushing ballot measures for minimum wage or “living wage” hikes in swing states that were meant to impact the election for liberal politicians. In short, they didn’t spend their time preaching to the choir — they were busy proselytizing to the swing voters … or at the very least busy creating bogus voter registrations for them.”

On a web site that was removed from public view but preserved by CRC, Project Vote identifies the renamed affiliates it worked with in key states as part of its GOTV efforts. Those states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Despite its questionable legal status in Louisiana, ACLOC remains in position to campaign aggressively on behalf of Barack Obama in 2012 and to partner with rebranded ACORN entities.

“There is no doubt in my mind that ACORN, in whatever form it chooses to disguise itself, will be a big player in the 2012 election cycle, particularly in the areas of voter registration and voter mobilization,” Vadum said. “ACORN’s affiliate Project Vote is still apparently well funded and has an ongoing relationship with rebranded ACORN entities such as Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice (PNSJ). With Project Vote and PNSJ it’s largely the same people. That’s the ACORN way: keep recycling people and campaigns and strategies and tactics over and over again while covering up the tracks. My understanding is that ACORN has never been strong in Virginia. ACORN prefers states with big cities because it concentrates its recruiting and activism in poor urban neighborhoods.”

Presidential Debt Commission Recommends Military Pay Freeze As Most Gov’t Employees Enjoy Raises

from Red White Blue News by ThePundit

Presidential Debt Commission Recommends Military Pay Freeze As Most Gov’t Employees Enjoy Raises: "

RWB News: As the number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, how can this debt commission even waste the paper to write such a thing? As more and more Military need to depend on food stamps….Yes Food Stamps…..Military.com says these jokers want to Freeze their pay and housing allowances for 3 years as their Boss Obama causes inflation….sounds like a great deal in Liberal Land.

They also recommended cuts to Social Security and Medicare, reduce income-tax rates and eliminate tax breaks including the mortgage-interest deduction and raise the gas tax…..This is called “fear mongering” by Liberals when a Conservative says it.

As Reported By Military.com

A presidential commission on reducing the deficit has recommended freezing basic military pay and housing allowances for three years starting in 2011, according to a draft report of the commission’s recommendations posted online Wednesday.

“A three-year freeze at 2011 levels for these compensation categories would save the federal government $7.6 billion in compensation and tax expenditures, as well as another $1.6 billion in less retirement accrual, or $9.2 billion total discretionary savings in 2015,” it said.

Let the DoD and your elected officials know how you feel about these cost cutting proposals.

The move would not affect combat pay, the report said.

A White House spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The recommendation is likely to get a cool reception in Congress.

swenbwr

Obama Gets Mixed Results at NATO Summit

from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. by Sally McNamara

Obama Gets Mixed Results at NATO Summit: "

President Obama’s flying visit to Lisbon this weekend resulted in a mixed bag of results. On a practical level, NATO made big strides in fashioning the transatlantic alliance for the 21^st century. On a personal level however, President Obama did not succeed in turning this weekend’s summits into ones that prioritized new START.

By far and away, the most important of the three summits this weekend was the NATO heads-of-state summit. The alliance agreed its first Strategic Concept of the millennium, outlining NATO’s core purpose and tasks. The 2010 Strategic Concept, while far shorter than the last one, reinforced the core elements of transatlantic security including: affirmation that Article V remains the bedrock of the alliance; that so long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will be a nuclear alliance; and that missile defense should become a core competency of the alliance. The alliance pledged to integrate and upgrade NATO members’ missile defense capabilities, taking the first step toward a genuinely transatlantic-wide missile defense architecture. It is important that this policy is now translated into a concrete action plan, with members pledging hard commitments that fairly share the burden of common defense.

The NATO-Russia Council meeting was more symbolic than results-orientated, being the first meeting of the Council since Moscow’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008. Once again Russia and NATO pledged to work together on missile defense, although it remains to be seen exactly how this will translate into action. NATO and Russia concluded their year-long Joint Review of 21st Century Common Security Challenges and pledged steps to move forward on issues of mutual concern including counter-piracy; counter-narcotics and Afghanistan. It is eminently sensible for the two to work together on areas where there are joint threat assessments, although NATO must continue to make it clear that it explicitly rejects Russia’s sphere of privileged interest policy.

The EU’s determination to peg a 90-minute EU-U.S. summit on to the end of this weekend’s meetings reeked of desperation on Brussels’ part to be taken seriously. The EU’s commitment to pointless summitry is well known and President Obama rightly rejected an invitation to visit Madrid earlier this year, hence Brussels’ determination to take its’ road-show to Lisbon.

President Obama however is likely to walk away from this weekend disappointed that he did not make this weekend’s summit ones that focused on new START. Although NATO leaders and the NRC all publicly endorsed new START once again, the bilateral US-Russian treaty did not gain the traction that Obama wanted. Ultimately, the US Senate will decide on the Treaty and not the NATO allies; therefore they were right to make a statement on it and move on to the more important business of the weekend.

President Obama should however be grateful that his policy change on Afghanistan was so robustly endorsed—at so far little political cost to him. He has quietly but firmly moved away from his untenable policy of withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by July 2011, and instead committed to being there until at least 2014, with a large U.S. non-combat presence likely to remain long after that. This is a sea-change from the policy he laid out at West Point in December 2009, and demonstrates that he is listening to his military commanders and other NATO allies such as the UK.

President Obama took a far-more workman-like approach to this summit than previous transatlantic visits. Coming on the back of exhausting and difficult trips to South Korea and India, the President was unable to rouse European leaders into gushing endorsements of his personal political agenda. However, he did manage to make progress on major issues such as the future of NATO and Afghanistan, which are important to U.S. security interests. He will leave Lisbon therefore having done just enough to ensure tomorrow’s headlines aren’t negative.

700,000 Medicare Beneficiaries to be Displaced

from The Weekly Standard Blog by Jeffrey H. Anderson

700,000 Medicare Beneficiaries to be Displaced: "

Today's Wall Street Journal reports:

Seniors enrolling in private Medicare policies starting this week are finding fewer options, as health insurers close down certain types of plans due to legislative changes and looming cuts to federal funding.

Cigna Corp., Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, several Blue Cross Blue Shield plans and others aren't renewing hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans, which are Medicare policies administered by private insurers. The moves will displace some 700,000 beneficiaries who must find new policies, according to Humana Inc., a large seller of Advantage plans.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare Advantage funding would be cut by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($254 billion) in Obamacare's real first decade (2014 to 2023), which amounts to cuts of about $25,000 for each of the roughly 10 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Those cuts wouldn't be made if Obamacare is repealed in January of 2013, but $8 billion will be cut by the end of 2012. These Medicare cuts -- both the $8 billion and the $254 billion -- wouldn't be used to make Medicare more solvent over the long haul, but would instead be spent on Obamacare.

The Journal contacted the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), headed by Donald Berwick, the outspoken advocate of the British National Health Service's rationing board (the National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence -- or NICE) -- who President Obama circumvented the Senate confirmation process to install in that post. In an article noting that 700,000 seniors who like their Medicare Advantage plans won't get to keep their Medicare Advantage plans, the Journal quotes Berwick as saying, "The Medicare Advantage program is stronger than ever before."

The growing Obamacare litigation may get new allies

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

The growing Obamacare litigation may get new allies: "

Florida Attorney General McCollum discusses the possible additional states joining the Florida lawsuit and Orrin Hatch talks tax cuts and the constitutionality of Obamacare.

If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get Flash Player from Adobe.

Governors push back on Obamacare

No equal treatment under the law with Obamacare

Who Should Control Your Health Care, You Or The Government?

Executive Orders – A Blueprint for Dictatorship?

from USACTION NEWS by Editor

Executive Orders – A Blueprint for Dictatorship?: "

Executive orders are presidential proclamations or directives that have the force of law without prior congressional approval.

Executive Orders

A Blueprint for Dictatorship?

By Tanya L. Green, J.D.

Revised: March 30, 2000

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.”

-Paul Begala, former aide to President Clinton¹

Article II of the United States Constitution grants the president vaguely defined “executive power.” It is one of the least specific yet potentially far-reaching powers awarded to the president.” Paired with Article II’s requirement that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the executive power clause provides for a range of “implied powers” with the extent and potency that, if abused, could lead our country down the path to a dictatorship.

Purpose of the Power

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

“Implied powers” are powers incidental, or subordinate, to the president’s constitutional duties as commander in chief and to the clause: “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The power to issue executive orders is derived from these “implied powers.” Executive orders are presidential proclamations or directives that have the force of law without prior congressional approval.

Orders are based on existing statutes or the president’s other constitutional responsibilities.” Although these orders usually pertain to government agencies and officials, their effects often reach the average citizen.” Orders are primarily issued to establish executive branch agencies, to modify bureaucratic rules or actions, to change decision-making procedures or to give substance and force to statutes.² “No constitutional basis exists for any president to legislate or make laws through executive orders.

Nor does the Constitution list specific procedures for issuing executive orders.” During the first one hundred years of our country’s history, orders were issued without any system of publication or recording.” The numbering of executive orders began in 1907 with numbers assigned retroactively to Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.” Congress, in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, mandated that the number and text of all executive orders be published in the Federal Register, the official U.S. government record.” The only exceptions are orders that pertain directly to sensitive national security matters, which are entered directly into the Register by number only.³

What began as a narrow use of executive orders under extreme national crises has grown into executive discretion bordering on dictatorial powers.” This growth in executive discretion is largely due to Congress’ reluctance to exercise its legislative responsibilities. Congress has delegated broad discretionary authority in the name of flexibility, effectiveness or efficiency.” Because of its neglect, the president has rarely been held accountable for his orders. In the words of Justice J. Jackson in Youngstown v. Sawyer: “We may say that power to legislate · belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.”⁴

Now, with the “stroke of the pen,” an executive order effectively becomes the “law of the land.” While some executive orders are appropriate uses of presidential authority, others violate the Constitution and threaten our civil liberties.

The Clinton Administration

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

Bill Clinton has signed approximately 300 executive orders during his presidency.” While some of those orders are legitimate, others are merely tools used to advance the goals of powerful special interest groups and his United Nations-inspired agenda.” With the groundwork laid by his predecessors and Congress, Clinton now has an arsenal of extraordinary powers at his disposal.” Virtually every issue has been reached by his use of executive orders.

Abortion.” Within weeks of his January 1993 inauguration, Clinton overturned the rule that prohibited workers at federally funded clinics from counseling, advising or providing information about abortion; the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research; and the Mexico City Policy which prohibited foreign nongovernmental organizations from providing abortion and referral services. He also directed the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the testing and licensing of RU-486, the “abortion pill.”

Homosexual rights.” To advance the agenda of the homosexual lobby, arguably one of his strongest supporters, Clinton signed Executive Order 13087 on May 28, 1998, which awarded homosexuals “special protection.” The order prohibits federal employers from discriminating based on sexual preference.” Clinton maintained that this measure did not create any new enforcement rights but merely “provided uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.”⁵” Concerned Women for America (CWA) opposed this executive order, because it is not about equality under the law but about special protection based on behavior.

Most recently, Clinton signed an executive order amending the military criminal code to add stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The order also changed the manual on courts-martial, which regulates military trials, by adding “hate crimes” language that says sentencing authorities may cite “hate” as an aggravating circumstance.” The order also creates a confidentiality privilege in criminal matters for service members’ conversations with psychotherapists.” The psychotherapist privilege waters down the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; it allows the men and women to confide their homosexuality to a therapist in certain circumstances without risking discharge from the service.

Through these executive orders, Clinton’s goal is to change the whole military climate, which maintains homosexuality is not compatible with military service.

The United Nations agenda.” In the following examples, Clinton has strategically used executive orders to advance the United Nations’ (U.N.) goals.” Such orders grant the U.N. excessive powers over American businesses, land and rivers, and families:

Invasive Species Executive Order 13112.” Issued in February 1999, this order prevents “invasive species” from entering public property.” Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center in Virginia, cautioned that alien species is defined as any species, “including seeds, egg spores or other biological material capable of propagating that species that is not native to the ecosystem [emphasis added].” Thus, alien species could be defined to include a farmer’s cattle or even the family dog.⁶

Implementation of Human Rights Treaties Executive Order 13107.” This calls on the U.S. government to implement portions of anti-family, pro-abortion U.N. treaties to which the U.S. now is, or may become, a party.

American Heritage Rivers Initiative Executive Order 13061.” The president designated 14 rivers as federal property-part of America’s heritage-to be seized by the federal government regardless of whether they run through private property.” The program’s estimated cost could reach $5 million, none of which has been appropriated by Congress. House Natural Resource Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) and Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) have filed suit to halt the initiative.⁷

Council on Sustainable Development Executive Order 12852.” “Sustainable development” is a U.N. buzzword meaning control over the consumption of resources like food, energy, fossil fuel, air conditioning, meat, frozen and convenience foods, suburban housing and kitchen appliances.” These items are not considered “sustainable,” or supportable, and federal and local programs are being set up to ensure that Americans “sustain” the environment.

Government Emergency, Federalism and Executive Orders

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

During a crisis, Clinton’s power grab would be most obvious.” Executive Order 12919 on National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness and numerous other orders give the president near dictatorial control over every aspect of society in times of a “national emergency” that he, not Congress, declares.” The order gives the president virtually unchecked power to implement plans and programs to control:

distribution of any product, such as food, to the public

availability of health care and medicines to Americans

marketing of gasoline and other fuels

forms of civilian transportation, including air travel

In May 1998, Clinton issued Federalism Executive Order 13083, an attempt to repeal federalism-the constitutional principle that reserves many powers to the states rather than the central government.” Clinton’s order specifically revoked an earlier order of President Ronald Reagan that affirmed the federalist concept. Reagan’s Executive Order 12612 restored the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the states. Reagan wrote: “Our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.”⁸” He strictly adhered to this constitutional principle.

By contrast, Clinton’s order blurs the lines between the national government and the states.” His order declared that the federal government can usurp state powers in numerous broadly defined circumstances when, for example, “there is a need for uniform national standards; when states would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations”; and “when the matter relates to · international obligations.” Adam Thierer of The Heritage Foundation said of the broad language, “These were loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.”⁹

Executive Order 13083 was one of the few edicts that evoked public opposition. Republicans sponsored congressional hearings where mayors, county commissioners, governors and members of the Democratic Party blasted the White House and Clinton for “thumbing his nose at the states.”¹⁰” Faced with such backlash, Clinton withdrew the order and replaced it with another.

Executive Order 13132 is eerily similar to order 13083.” Definitions and policy were strengthened, and restrictions were placed on federal agencies in the new order.” But there is no challenge to the federal agencies to enact the new order’s rules and regulations.” They are only required to consult state officials when developing policies that have federal implications.” The assault on the 10th Amendment, which prevents the federal government from usurping states’ powers, remains.” If this new order is allowed to stand, the states could become subject to the national government.

Needless to say, these types of actions by the president are not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted the document.” A look at history reveals how we have reached this point.

Origin: Lockean Theory

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

To understand the origin of executive orders, we need to examine the writings of English political philosopher John Locke.” Locke strongly influenced the framers of the Constitution. Under his theory, the president should be permitted to exercise as much discretion as possible-even if it means contradicting the law-for the public good in times of dire emergencies. Locke defined this act of discretion as a “prerogative.”¹¹ “The good of society requires that several things should be left to him that has the executive power. For the legislators not being able to foresee and provide by laws for all that may be useful to the community, the executor of the laws, having the power in his hands, has by the common law of nature a right to make use of it for the good of the society, in many cases, where the municipal law has given no direction, till the legislative can conveniently be assembled to provide for it. Many things there are which the law can by no means provide for, and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the executive power in his hands to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require.¹²

The framers acknowledged that it would be “impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies · The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite; and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.”¹³

The constitutional framers adopted Locke’s philosophy of executive discretion.” However, they were mindful of the need for checks and balances on the power of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government.” James Madison wrote, “that the risks of usurpation [of power] are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments.”¹⁴” Nonetheless, in a republican government the legislative authority “necessarily predominates.”¹⁵” The Constitution reflects this deference to the legislative branch.

Historical Uses

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

George Washington first used the executive order to unilaterally declare the United States neutral during the war between France and England.” Washington justified his action with the argument that his constitutional responsibilities in diplomacy included the implied power to keep the United States out of war.” James Madison criticized Washington’s action, saying that the proclamation was invalid because only Congress could decide issues of war and peace.¹⁶”

Not until Abraham Lincoln’s presidency were executive orders recorded.” During the turmoil preceding the Civil War, Lincoln issued an executive order for raiding telegraph offices to seize originals and copies of telegrams.” Next, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, arresting men without probable cause or explanation.” He gave funds from the U.S. Treasury Department to private citizens to enable them to purchase war supplies.” He also expanded the armed forces.” Congress approved these actions after they occurred because of the national emergency.” Lincoln argued that since Congress was not in session, he had an inherent, or implied, power to deal with the crisis.” Furthermore, he argued that he could even act illegally to preserve the Union.” Congress yielded to his arguments.¹⁷

Years later, President Theodore Roosevelt argued that he had implied powers which were limited only by specific constitutional prohibitions.” Roosevelt believed that the president had the duty to use these powers as a “steward of the people.”¹⁸

In contrast, President William Taft argued that the president could use only those powers specifically granted to him in the Constitution or the laws.” Taft believed Roosevelt’s stewardship theory would result in arbitrary action during a national emergency, which would destroy private rights.¹⁹” Later uses of executive orders would prove him right.” Yet, Taft held similar beliefs to Roosevelt over the use of implied powers during a crisis.

Congress delegated broad powers to Taft’s successor, Woodrow Wilson, to carry out military functions to regulate the domestic economy.” At the onset of World War I, Wilson signed the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which allowed for regulation and censorship of all external communications.” The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of 1917 allowed him to seize defense-related facilities; to regulate food production, manufacturing and mining; and to fix prices on commodities.” The Selective Service Act of 1917 allowed the president to raise an army.” The Espionage Act of 1917 gave him the power to restrict exports.” Congress delegated these broad powers to Wilson to allow him to carry out military functions and regulate the domestic economy.” Congress also granted Wilson broad authority to monitor the actions of resident aliens, to regulate or operate transportation and communications facilities, and to reorganize executive branch agencies where necessary.” In essence, Congress granted Wilson free rein to conduct the war and to maintain the domestic economy.²⁰

Unlike Lincoln, Wilson relied heavily on Congress for official delegations of authority. Lincoln drew on his power as commander in chief; Wilson exercised emergency power on the basis of old statutes and new legislation.” Yet, both Lincoln and Wilson issued wide-sweeping wartime measures.” Perhaps because of Wilson’s scrupulous practice of obtaining prior congressional approval, only one of his measures was challenged.²¹

Following the severance of diplomatic relations with Germany in early 1917, a group of senators successfully delayed a bill that authorized the arming of American merchant ships.” In response, according to American historian Frank Freidel in his book Roosevelt: the Apprenticeship, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt-FDR-found an old statute allowing the president to proceed without authorization from Congress.²²

Wilson’s most significant executive orders were economic in nature.” Just prior to the United States’ entry into the war in August 1916, Congress, at Wilson’s prompting, established a Council of National Defense, which had a primarily advisory function.” One year later, in response to an ineffective economic mobilization, Republicans in Congress demanded a coalition War Cabinet similar to that in England.” Wilson stalled Congress by proposing legislation that delegated to him almost total economic power and, even before legislative approval, authorized the War Industries Board to exercise extensive powers.” Subsequently, Congress enacted Wilson’s measure, the Overman Act, in April 1918.²³

Following the Allied victory, Wilson relinquished his wartime authority and asked Congress to repeal the emergency statutes that were enacted to fight the war more effectively. Only a food-control measure and the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act were retained.²⁴” It is crucial to note that Wilson’s successors have not consistently followed his example of terminating emergency powers when the particular emergency ended.

FDR’s use of executive emergency powers was a turning point for the United States’ presidency.” The Great Depression confronted him upon his inauguration, and FDR immediately began using his implied powers.” In response to the Depression, he declared a national emergency and closed the banks by proclaiming a National Bank Holiday, basing this action on the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act.²⁵” Unlike previous emergencies, this one posed a nonmilitary threat.” The Trading With the Enemy Act was specifically designed for wartime emergencies.” Roosevelt’s use of this statute greatly expanded the definition of emergencies.” He likened the calamity of the Depression to war and used wartime measures.” Congress supported him unanimously.²⁶

Roosevelt insisted that he was using “limited emergency” powers.” He acted without statutory authority in concluding his 1940 Bases for Destroyers Deal, which gave obsolete destroyers to England in exchange for military defense bases in the Atlantic Ocean.” This act violated the Neutrality Act.²⁷” Moreover, he convoyed war materials to England, disposed of surplus war materials and engaged in naval operations in the North Atlantic that resulted in military engagements with Germany before war was declared.” He also ordered the seizure of several defense plants.” Roosevelt relied on his commander-in-chief powers to undertake all of these actions.²⁸

Roosevelt openly expressed his interpretation of inherent emergency powers in a speech before Congress on September 7, 1942, when he requested repeal of the Emergency Price Control Act.” Roosevelt told Congress that the president had inherent powers to take any measures necessary to win the war-even implicitly repealing a law by non-enforcement should Congress fail to repeal it.²⁹” The speech was a pure expression of Locke’s prerogative theory of the president’s authority to act in violation of the law for the public good.³⁰” Roosevelt linked his power to a trust he received from the people, which led to his duty to defend the country.” But Roosevelt stated that when the crisis was over, “the powers under which I act automatically revert to the people-to whom they belong.”³¹

Roosevelt’s successor Harry S. Truman further expanded the concept of a national emergency.” Truman put the nation on emergency war footing in 1950 with the invasion of North Korea.” In late 1951, he ordered the seizure of strike-threatened steel mills to avoid potential shortages, though Congress had not officially declared a war.” Truman based his action “on the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.”³²

Congress did not respond, but the U.S. Supreme Court did. In Youngstown, the court held the seizure of the steel mills to be unconstitutional.” It reasoned that in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Labor Act Congress had decided not to give presidents the right to take over industrial facilities shut down by strikes.³³” Further, the majority implied that the president did not possess inherent powers in times of emergency, nor did the commander-in-chief role grant special domestic powers.³⁴

Perpetual State of Emergency

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

Although the Korean War ended, Congress did not terminate the state of emergency. From 1933 until 1975, the United States lived in a perpetual state of emergency.” Truman terminated Roosevelt’s pre-World War II emergencies (declared in 1939 and 1941) that granted the president greater discretion to direct defense preparations, organize the executive branch and mobilize the nation for potential hostilities.” But four other states of emergency remained as of 1975: Roosevelt’s bank emergency (1933), Truman’s mobilization following the invasion of North Korea (1950), Nixon’s use of troops to maintain mail deliveries (1970), and Nixon’s response to international economic conditions (1970).³⁵

Congress neither specified a termination date for these emergencies nor wrote statute provisions for terminating the president’s emergency authority.” Emergency declarations are usually drafted in the White House and rushed through Congress.” What is so disturbing is that these unexpired states of emergency gave the president the technical authority to invoke a wide range of emergency powers, even if no crisis seemed imminent.³⁶” For example, on August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon issued a proclamation to impose stringent import controls because of an international monetary crisis.” This contained general language that could have served as sufficient authority to use a substantial proportion of all emergency statutes then on the books.³⁷ These powers included the right to seize private property and regulate private enterprise, to organize and control all means of production and transportation, to call up reservists and assign military forces overseas, to institute martial law and to restrict travel.³⁸

From 1933 until 1975, the United States lived in a perpetual state of emergency.”

Disturbed by this, the Senate created the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency in 1973.” This committee’s task was to examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency; to recommend steps for Congress to take to ensure the termination could be accomplished without adverse effects upon the necessary tasks of governing; and to recommend ways in which the United States could meet future emergency situations with efficiency but without loss of congressional oversight and control.³⁹

The committee drew a number of conclusions from its study and analyses of emergency laws:

It showed a pattern in which Congress, through its own inaction, transferred extraordinary powers to the president ostensibly to govern effectively in times of great crisis.

Since 1933, Congress had passed or re-codified over 470 significant statutes that delegated to the president powers that had been the prerogative and responsibility of the Congress since the establishment of the Republic.

The charge could not be sustained that the executive branch usurped powers belonging to the legislature, because the transfer of power had been in accord with due process of normal legislative procedures.

Congress had in the most important respects, except for the final action of floor debate and formal passage of bills, permitted the executive branch to draft and, in large measure, “make the laws.” This had occurred despite the constitutional responsibility conferred on Congress by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which states that it is Congress that “makes all Laws ·”

Most of the statutes pertaining to emergency powers were passed in times of extreme crisis. Bills drafted in the executive branch were sent to Congress by the president.” The most significant laws that were on the books were those legislated by the executive branch.” They were approved with only the most perfunctory committee review.” Virtually no consideration took place of their impact on civil liberties or the structure of the government of divided powers.⁴⁰

The report further concluded that very few senators and representatives objected to Congress’ neglect of its duties.” These conclusions echoed Justice Jackson’s admonition about Congress “preventing power from slipping through its fingers.”

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

As a result of the committee’s findings, and during a period when efforts were made to rein in the “imperial presidency,”⁴¹ Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) which terminated, as of 1978, the states of emergency still in effect.” The law also established procedures for declaring and terminating future states of emergency.” The provisions of the NEA were intended to force Congress and the president, acting independently or together, to ensure that any state of emergency does not outlive the conditions upon which it was based.⁴²

Under NEA, the president cannot lawfully declare a state of national emergency without also specifying the provisions of existing law or the Constitution under which the proposed action falls.” Furthermore, any proclamation of a national emergency must be transmitted immediately to Congress and published in the Federal Register.

In addition, during a national emergency, the president and all relevant executive branch agencies or departments must maintain files on all rules, regulations, executive orders or any other activities carried out to address the emergency.” All of this must be promptly provided to Congress.

The law also specifies how the order is to be terminated, either by the president or Congress.” The two houses of Congress must, by law, meet to consider a concurrent resolution to determine whether the emergency should be terminated no later than six months after an emergency is declared.” Should Congress be unable or unwilling to terminate the emergency, it must consider another resolution within the next six-month period.” The president can terminate unilaterally any declared state of emergency when it is deemed that the conditions meriting the emergency have passed.” And to avoid another perpetual state of emergency, the law calls for automatic termination of an emergency upon the anniversary of its declaration, unless the president previously notifies Congress (and publishes in the Federal Register) of the need to continue the emergency.

Yet, despite its good intentions, NEA is not without flaws.

First, it is unclear as to who actually declares a state of emergency-Congress or the president.

Second, it does not specify what constitutes an emergency nor does it provide criteria by which to direct the president in declaring states of emergency.” Therefore, the president can declare anything as a national emergency.” When he does, the president can use all 470 emergency statutes.” Severe laws could potentially be enacted during a relatively minor crisis.

Third, the NEA contains vague words.” The president can interpret them as he sees fit, thereby arbitrarily using the statutes.

Fourth, although the president is required to publish executive orders in the Register, he has a loophole in that only a number may be used to register those orders that pertain to sensitive matters, such as national security.” Therefore, he may record “secret” orders under the guise of “sensitive matters.”

Fifth, even though the Act contains an automatic termination provision, in actuality the emergency terminates whenever the president says it does.

In 1977, Congress amended the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act.” By doing so, it curbed executive authority to impose economic controls during states of emergency.” It narrowed the act’s broader authority to wartime.” The amended law also defined economic controls that presidents could employ without calling a state of national emergency, including the ability to regulate foreign currency transactions, to institute embargoes against other nations, and to freeze foreign assets.⁴³

Restoring Constitutional Balance

Purpose of the Power

The Clinton Administration

Emergencies and Federalism

Origin: Lockean Theory

Historical Uses

Perpetual State of Emergency

National Emergencies Act of 1976

Restoring Constitutional Balance

Clinton’s orders and those of his predecessors threaten our freedom.” For the most part, Congress has been lax in exercising its constitutional responsibility.” It has acted as nothing more than a rubber stamp for presidential edicts.” DeWeese has warned that congressional inaction “literally will establish the Clinton administration as a dictatorship, immune to checks and balances so brilliantly provided by the Constitution.”⁴⁴” Rep. John Metcalf (R-Washington) attributes the timidity to “a combination of Republican skittishness over confrontation and an uncritical acceptance of presidential authority in areas where it properly resides with the Congress.”⁴⁵ “”"

There is hope. Rep. Metcalf and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) have proposed legislation called the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (H.R. 2655).” The bill would restore the proper division of power within the branches of government, thereby preventing further executive abuse. It would terminate existing states of emergency and grant Congress the exclusive authority to make such declarations.

The bill would require the president to issue orders based only on statutory and constitutional authority. The orders would not have the effect of law and would be limited in application and effect to the executive branch. Finally, the bill would permit members of Congress, state and local governments, and people whose liberty or property interest has been adversely affected to sue in court to stop an order’s enforcement.

“The American public has grown increasingly weary of the use of executive orders,” says Rep. Paul. “Presidents must be able to direct their employees, but this power must be closely confined by the laws which they are constitutionally and legislatively empowered to execute.”⁴⁶

Congress must either abolish or amend the National Emergencies Act of 1976.” It must hold the president accountable for his actions.” Ultimately, we must all step up to the plate.” “If we are to be saved from the autocracy that follows [the abuse of presidential power], Congress, the states and the courts must perform their duties under our system of divided and separated powers,” said William J. Olsen and Alan Woll.⁴⁷” Otherwise, in the words of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland), “We’ll need another revolution.”⁴⁸“”"”

For more on what you can do, visit the libertycommittee .org

End Notes

James Bennet, “True to Form, Clinton Shifts Energies Back to U.S. Focus,” The New York Times, 10 July 1998, A10.

Michael Nelson, “Guide to the Presidency,” (Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), 471-492.

Ibid., 479.

Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

Executive Order 13087.

Catherine Edwards, “Emergency Rule, Abuse of Power?” Insight, 23 August 1999, 18.

Edwards, 19.

Executive Order 12612.

Matt Kaufman, “The President Who Would Be King,” Citizen, August 1999, 15.

Ibid., 16.

John Locke, ed. J.W. Gough, The Second Treatise of Government And A Letter Concerning Toleration, 3rd ed., (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 80.

Ibid.

Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, ed. Jacob E. Cooke, The Federalist, Limited ed., (Franklin Center: Franklin Library, 1984), Paper No. 23, 165.

The Federalist, Paper No. 51, 382.

Ibid., 381.

Nelson, 480.

Glenn E. Fuller, “The National Emergency Dilemma: Balancing the Executive’s Crisis Powers with the Need for Accountability,” 52 Southern California Law Review: 1453, 1481-1483 (1979).

Ibid., 1483.

Ibid., 1484.

Nelson, 488.

Staff of Senate Special Comm. on the Termination of the National Emergency, 93rd” Cong., 1st Sess., “Report on Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency” (Comm. Print 1973).

Report on Emergency Powers 3.

Report on Emergency Powers 4.

Ibid.

Presidential Proclamation No. 2039.

Report on Emergency Powers 4-5.

Neutrality Act of 1939, J. Res. No. 54 s. 7(a), 54 Stat. 4 (codified at 22 U.S.C. s.447(a) (1976). Note, however, that Art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2” of” the” U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ·”

Fuller, 1485-1487.

88 Cong. Rec. 7044 (1942).

Fuller, 1487.

88 Cong. Rec. 7044 (1942).

Nelson, 489.

Youngstown v. Sawyer.

Nelson, 489.

Ibid., 490.

Ibid., 490-491.

Report 6.

Nelson, 491 [taken from Congress and the Nation, vol. 4, (Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1977), 802].

Report Foreword.

Report 6-7.

Nelson, 492.

Ibid., 489.

Ibid., 492.

Tom DeWeese, ” Clinton Attempts Rule By Executive Order ,” Insight, 3 August 1998, 28.

Kaufman, 16.

Edwards, 19.

William J. Olsen and Alan Woll, “Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to “Run the Country’ by Usurping Legislative Power,” Cato Policy Analysis 358 (1999), 22.

Edwards, 19.

Concerned Women for America

1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 488-7000

Fax: (202) 488-0806

E-mail: mail@cwfa.org

HEADLINES

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Florida Attorney General McCollum discusses the possible additional states joining the Florida lawsuit and Orrin Hatch talks tax cuts and the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Executive orders are presidential proclamations or directives that have the force of law without prior congressional approval.

Executive Orders

RELATED ARTICLES:

Heritage Foundation

DrudgeFeed.com - Drudge Report RSS feed

RedState

Right Wing News

RenewAmerica

Hot Air » Top Picks

Conservative Outpost

Conservative Examiner

Michelle Malkin

Big Government

Big Journalism

Big Hollywood

Pajamas Media