Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (17335)	7/23/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

CNN the organization has retracted its "news" piece on the alleged use of Sarin gas. CNN did this when it became apparent what that "news" piece was really all about. I'm sure the retraction was done on advice of counsel. A wise move since I believe their flank was wide open. However, they left Peter (I hate America) Arnett in place despite his equally despicable behavior and the "journalists" responsible for the "news" piece are still loudly proclaiming it is accurate. I'd compare those journalists more closely to Drudge. CNN's retraction speaks to its monetary exposure, not any real sense of ethics. They don't have one. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (17335)	7/23/1998 10:30:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

Good night all. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (17335)	7/23/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Snubbing the Constitution Investor's Business Daily Editorial E D I T O R I A L Snubbing The Constitution Date: 7/24/98 This White House operates on the notion that the ends justify the means. The latest example is President Clinton's Executive Order 13083 on federalism. In it, the president runs roughshod over the Constitution, not to mention the states. The Constitution's Ninth and 10th amendments reserve to the people and the states those rights and responsibilities not specifically set aside for federal authorities. But that's not where Clinton's heart lies. Never has. Nor for that matter does most of Washington buy into the concept. Yet these amendments define the relationship between federal and state governments. In shorthand, this relationship is known as federalism. Clinton gives federalism the lip service that only he's capable of. In May, he addressed the topic head on by issuing Executive Order 13083. That order purports to define and assert federal say over ''policies that have federalism implications.'' No real problem there. Then again, problems usually don't arise from what Clinton says. It's what he does that matters. Take Section 4 of the order. It requires federal agencies to consult with their counterparts in the states before putting forth regulations affecting them. But this White House couldn't give 2 cents for what the states think. The evidence? It issued this sweeping power grab without consulting the states at all. ''They order everyone else to consult, but then do exactly the opposite. It's a slap in the face, really,'' said William T. Pound, the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures, after learning of the executive order. Even worse, though, is the order's blatant intrusion on the actions of states and individuals. It lays out nine conditions of sufficient ''national or multistate scope'' to justify federal intervention. For example, intervention is OK ''when states would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other states.'' Translation: States' economic interests don't matter if Washington, like the Wizard of Oz, has spoken. It doesn't seem to matter that businesses could relocate elsewhere, even overseas, due to Washington's onerous rule making. It doesn't seem to matter that Americans would lose their jobs as a result. Also, it's not hard to predict that with the power it is claiming, this White House could step up its efforts to reward friendly, and voter-rich, states, while punishing the more independent ones. The order further defines conditions that could invoke Washington's power. Among the triggers for the order is ''proposed legislation'' in Congress. Proposed legislation? Why are proposed bills even relevant? Thousands of bills get thrown into Capitol Hill's hopper every year; most get tossed in the waste bin. Who, Mr. President, will decide which pieces of proposed legislation count and which don't? Your appointees? Does this mean the White House can keep states from lobbying on ''proposed legislation?'' Also, can the White House pick and choose which bills states have a voice on? If the answer is yes to these last two questions, say goodbye to the checks and balances set up in the Constitution. And say hello to despotism. Federalism was at the heart of the debate over the Constitution. The Founders knew the peril of unrestrained rulers. To avoid despotism, they set up competing power centers to rein in the excesses of the others. Power is checked by the interplay among the three branches of the federal government. But the Constitution also spells out in the forgotten Ninth and 10th amendments that the people and the states have their own power - precisely to restrain the federal government's power. But to this White House, more power is the end - and the means just don't matter. C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc. Metadata: E/IBD E/SN1 E/EDIT freerepublic.com