THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
A curb on Clinton power?
Congressional resolution would limit scope of executive orders
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1999
By Sarah Foster
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Concerned about President Clinton's aggressive use of executive orders to shape policy and make end-runs around Congress, Rep. Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., has introduced legislation he hopes will check the White House's hand.
"The president has in effect made himself a 'super-legislator' by issuing executive orders that require the appropriation of funds," says Metcalf, explaining the reason for his new bill. "We must reverse this trend and fulfill our constitutional duty. This vital legislation reasserts the role of Congress to enact legislation and appropriate federal dollars. [It] reminds us all that only Congress has the power to authorize the spending of federal dollars."
If House Concurrent Resolution 30 passes, any executive order "which infringes on congressional powers and duties" or requires the expenditure of federal funds "not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the executive order" would be advisory only and have no force or effect unless Congress enacts it as law.
Those powers and duties are detailed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which assigns to Congress various responsibilities, among them levying and collecting taxes, declaring war, raising and maintaining a military, regulating commerce between the states and foreign nations, and coining money.
"We're focusing on Section 8 because we want to re-establish completely the prerogatives of the Congress to authorize and appropriate funds for legislation," explained Metcalf's chief of staff, Lew Moore, in a telephone interview.
The resolution would apply not only to recent executive orders, but to those issued by the president "before, on, or after the date of the approval of this resolution."
Of the 279 executive orders issued by Clinton, Metcalf regards E.O. 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts along American Heritage Rivers -- issued Sept. 11, 1997 -- as one that's "particularly egregious," said Moore. "That's the one that really got us started. Clinton was promising federal money that had not been appropriated; he was reprogramming funds that were not authorized."
Under this executive order, Clinton would select 10 rivers from a list of nominees -- deemed in need of "federal protection" and funds. Nominations were made by local governments and various environmental groups, with -- at first -- no provision for withdrawing a nominated river from the list. The list was later expanded, again by executive order, to 14.
Metcalf discovered the Snohomish River in his district had been nominated without his knowledge or consent, but with support of the local government officials who had been promised funding by federal agents.
When questioned, officials explained White House agents had promised money for various projects.
"In essence, what they [the local officials] told us was that the federal government was going to issue regulations or in some way use its police powers to 'protect' the river -- along with funding," Moore recalled. "This was the pitch to these people to support this initiative. They didn't realize that they were taking the first steps towards having the Feds driving local land use policy. And of course, they were promising that funding would be sent from the various agencies to assist in this effort."
"This means the funding would be rerouted from one purpose to another," Moore said. "As an example, where money might have been appropriated for U.S. Fish and Wildlife for various programs, not a dime has been appropriated by Congress for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. By going through this circuitous routing, they were hoping to get some funding in."
It was this rerouting of money to implement the Heritage Rivers program that caused Moore and Metcalf to take a closer look at the mechanics of executive orders.
As they see it, "If Congress sends money to an agency, say to Fish and Wildlife, for one purpose -- and it ends up in a program that every chairman of jurisdiction in the Congress has made very clear they oppose, that's thwarting the intent of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution," Moore said. "I don't know how else you can read that."
As of March 20, HCR 30 had 32 cosponsors. The first to sign on was Rep. Henry Hyde, R-IL, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where the bill will eventually be heard.
Other co-sponsors include Reps. Ernest Istook, R-OK, Ron Paul, R-TX, Dan Burton, R-IN, Virgil Goode, D-WV, and James Traficant, D-OH.
"We believe HCR 30 is the first shot across the bow in a new and renewed struggle to take our Constitution back and to return the prerogatives to the peoples' representatives," said Moore.
"But to get out of the Judiciary Committee, HCR 30 must be raised to the radar" of other members of Congress."
worldnetdaily.com
Posted for purposes of education and discussion only. |
