http://www.insightmag.com/articles/story4.html#linkTOP
"It was never intended that the president should
rule by executive decree, usurping the legislative
role of Congress. But a top Clinton aide has called
this option 'kinda cool."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> In 1974, a special Senate Committee on
National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers was alarmed to find that the United States
had been governed under emergency authority since
1933. Committee cochairman Sen. Frank Church of
Idaho cautioned: "It is distressingly clear that our
constitutional government has been weakened by 41
years of emergency rule." Emergencies declared by
FDR and Harry Truman still were in effect, for
example, and the committee found that over time
aggressive presidents had subsumed 470 legally
delegated powers from permissive Congresses to
govern beyond normal constitutional powers. The
law allowed presidents to seize property, control
production, restrict travel and institute martial law. In
other words, "Presidents could manage every aspect
of the lives of all American citizens," Church wrote.
. . . . The 1974 National Emergencies Act sunsetted
all existing emergencies at that time. Congress then
passed legislation in 1976 and in 1985 allowing
termination of any national emergency by joint
resolution, though no such resolution has been
offered.
. . . . Olsen argues that more citizens know about
executive abuses than do congressmen, whom he
chastises for having been "supine" in their response
to presidential excess.
. . . . This may be changing, however. Republican
Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington state introduced a
resolution this year (HR30) to express the sense of
Congress that any executive order infringing on the
constitutionally delegated congressional powers must
be considered for advisory purposes only and be
ineligible for federal funds.
. . . . Cliff Kincaid of the American Sovereignty Action
Project believes Metcalf's approach is the best course
of action. Kincaid's group held a conference in early
July to highlight unconstitutional executive orders
and presidential abuses of power. Because the Metcalf
bill is a resolution, it only can serve to heighten
awareness of the issue, and Kincaid rightly notes that
any legislation with teeth is almost certain to be
vetoed by the president.
. . . . Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has a
different approach. He notes that some executive
orders are necessary, legitimate and constitutional.
"Others are abused and are way overstepping their
bounds," he tells Insight. Paul has proposed
legislation called the Separation of Powers
Restoration Act, which would provide that whenever
the president signs an executive order under the
auspices of Article II it may be applied only to federal
employees, with constitutional duties such as
activities pursuant to the military and his role as
commander in chief protected. Presidential orders
issued to accord with unratified treaties would be
illegal, as would orders to support ratified treaties
that violate the laws of states and local governments.
. . . . The Paul bill would rescind existing laws that
have violated the separation of powers, put to bed
every national emergency in effect and give standing
in court to members of Congress, local governments
and other people aggrieved by executive orders. An
aide to Paul tells Insight that a possible presidential
veto would provide momentum to get the two-thirds
votes necessary to override a veto.......(more)[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
"It was never intended that the president should
rule by executive decree, usurping the legislative
role of Congress. But a top Clinton aide has called
this option 'kinda cool."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> In 1974, a special Senate Committee on
National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers was alarmed to find that the United States
had been governed under emergency authority since
1933. Committee cochairman Sen. Frank Church of
Idaho cautioned: "It is distressingly clear that our
constitutional government has been weakened by 41
years of emergency rule." Emergencies declared by
FDR and Harry Truman still were in effect, for
example, and the committee found that over time
aggressive presidents had subsumed 470 legally
delegated powers from permissive Congresses to
govern beyond normal constitutional powers. The
law allowed presidents to seize property, control
production, restrict travel and institute martial law. In
other words, "Presidents could manage every aspect
of the lives of all American citizens," Church wrote.
. . . . The 1974 National Emergencies Act sunsetted
all existing emergencies at that time. Congress then
passed legislation in 1976 and in 1985 allowing
termination of any national emergency by joint
resolution, though no such resolution has been
offered.
. . . . Olsen argues that more citizens know about
executive abuses than do congressmen, whom he
chastises for having been "supine" in their response
to presidential excess.
. . . . This may be changing, however. Republican
Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington state introduced a
resolution this year (HR30) to express the sense of
Congress that any executive order infringing on the
constitutionally delegated congressional powers must
be considered for advisory purposes only and be
ineligible for federal funds.
. . . . Cliff Kincaid of the American Sovereignty Action
Project believes Metcalf's approach is the best course
of action. Kincaid's group held a conference in early
July to highlight unconstitutional executive orders
and presidential abuses of power. Because the Metcalf
bill is a resolution, it only can serve to heighten
awareness of the issue, and Kincaid rightly notes that
any legislation with teeth is almost certain to be
vetoed by the president.
. . . . Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has a
different approach. He notes that some executive
orders are necessary, legitimate and constitutional.
"Others are abused and are way overstepping their
bounds," he tells Insight. Paul has proposed
legislation called the Separation of Powers
Restoration Act, which would provide that whenever
the president signs an executive order under the
auspices of Article II it may be applied only to federal
employees, with constitutional duties such as
activities pursuant to the military and his role as
commander in chief protected. Presidential orders
issued to accord with unratified treaties would be
illegal, as would orders to support ratified treaties
that violate the laws of states and local governments.
. . . . The Paul bill would rescind existing laws that
have violated the separation of powers, put to bed
every national emergency in effect and give standing
in court to members of Congress, local governments
and other people aggrieved by executive orders. An
aide to Paul tells Insight that a possible presidential
veto would provide momentum to get the two-thirds
votes necessary to override a veto.......(more)[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"