No
matter the president, we hear of them signing Executive Orders (EO). Do
we really know what this is or what power it contains? Let's explore
that a little. The meaning of the EO is to tell agencies how to process
law. Sometimes when congress creates a new law, the text isn't always
clear how that law is to be managed. The president can, and should as
leader of the country, direct how that law is to be implemented. If
congress disagrees with how the president is implementing the law they
can amend that law to give proper definitions.
The
president could simply order the secretary to send out a memo, but that
carries less weight. The president will write and sign the EO, and that
EO is then entered into the National Registry. Once that document is
entered, and remains unchallenged for 90 days, it then becomes law. We
have been told time and time again that an EO is not law, but that's not
always fact.
We
have agencies such as the EPA using the same process. The board will
write a new regulation and enter that regulation into the National
Registry. If that regulation remains unchallenged for 90 days, it becomes
law. We have a congress that has spent two hundred years giving away
its power. When we have a divided congress like today, if someone did
challenge the EO or regulation, there wouldn't be enough agreement to
vote that EO or regulation down. We should at least have congress form a
committee to monitor the registry so that they are aware of new
regulations/laws.
For
decades we have lived under a soft tyranny. Because we have such a
divided congress that cares only about re-election, we now may be living
in a full fledged tyranny. Imagine this scenario: Obama signs an EO
removing term limits for his office. Congress can't agree on a bill that
nullifies that EO, that EO becomes law until, or if, the courts strike
it down.
Imagine
if both houses were controlled by democrats. Obama is a relatively
popular president. It is within the realm of possibility that he could
declare himself dictator. I fear that the the American people might be
open to such a maneuver. If the democrats had known the American people
were this gullible, they might have tried this maneuver when they had
full control of Congress.
I
suspect most people were like myself and wondered how federal agencies
had the power to create what is essentially law. I know, now, it's not
essentially law, but law in all definitions of the term. We have been
told that through an EO, a president cannot create law. We know now this
is not the truth.
To
protect ourselves it might be a good idea to have a constitutional
amendment that requires a time limit on all EO's and agency regulations.
After a set time length the agency regulation must expire or be voted
into law by congress. We must find a way to protect ourselves from
agency and EO abuse. We have seen that the courts and congress can't be
trusted. Judges are no longer guided by law, but by ideology. The same
can be said for congress and the president.
No comments:
Post a Comment