From: jemdet@newnorth.net
Subject: SNET: [Fwd: [patriot] (fwd) [govtwatch] A curb on Clinton power?]
Date: 28 Mar 1999 01:43:14 -0500
To: Patriot Net , APFN ,
        Patriots ,
        Patriotawareness ,
        ChristianPatriot ,
        SNET 


->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

But what about EO's that affect the rights of the people?  Guess that don't
matter, huh?
Sarge

schuetzen wrote:

> From: chasm@insync.net (schuetzen)
>
> Call your critter and ask him to sign on to support Metcalf on this bill
> chas
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 02:38:36 -0000, chiliast@ideasign.com  wrote:
>
>     TUESDAY MARCH 23 1999
>
> ------------------------------------------
> [WND Exclusive ]
> ------------------------------------------
> THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
> A curb on Clinton power?
> Congressional resolution
> would limit scope of executive orders
> ------------------------------------------
>
> 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."
>
> [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The
> Sender - A.K. Pritchard]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A.K. Pritchard
> http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/
>
> To subscribe to  "The Republican"  email list - just ask!
>
> "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
> it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
> limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
> of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
> whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
> brink of destruction."
>
> -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
> "Commentaries on the Laws of England."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroups Spotlight:
> "Kosovo-Reports" - Direct reports from Kosovo/Serbia/Yugoslavia.
> http://offers.egroups.com/click/252/0
>
> eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/govtwatch
> Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ta Da! Come see our new web site!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Onelist: A free email community service
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> unsubscribe info at http://www.onelist.com/





-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: jemdet@newnorth.net