January 18, 1998
by: Doug Fiedor
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
As attorney Larry Becraft points out in his excellent legal texts, there is a little more to the federal regulatory problem than just executive orders. Nevertheless, Schroder's text should be studied by anyone interested in Tenth Amendment issues and the decline of individual freedom. Some of Schroder's writings are available on the Internet from time to time.
In 1973, the Senate (Senate Report 93-549 of 1973) looked into the problem of presidents making law unilaterally through executive orders and via emergency powers. First, it was noted that the United States has been under a state of "emergency rule" continually since the days of Roosevelt. The introduction of the report states:
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Another part of the findings of the Senate concerning the emergency powers available to the president upon his decree is also very informative.
"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprises; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
So, the Senate Committee called the Attorney General in for an opinion on the situation. The Attorney General reported to the Committee:
". . . a `national emergency' is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of `emergency' has become a permanent condition."
In other words, the Attorney General admitted to the Senate Committee that many of the powers Congress allowed to the President for use in "national emergencies" have become "the regular and normal method of governmental actions." These national emergency powers, which are outside the authority given the federal government by the Constitution, "have become everyday powers, and a state of `emergency' has become a permanent condition."
These "national emergency" powers and executive orders have, in fact, totally corrupted our Constitutional form of government. Yet, Congress does nothing to correct this situation. Rather, Congress worsened the situation through the creation of FEMA, and by passing legislation that made some of the President's "emergency powers" permanent and everyday powers.
They forgot something, though. Those powers are unconstitutional.
First, let's look where the Supreme Court would look for guidance on this situation: In The Federalist Papers, No. 47, James Madison labels that arrangement tyranny: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
That seems to be a very adequate description of many of the administration's agency actions. Each federal agency combines the executive, legislative and judicial all in one agency. Tyranny. And so too is tyranny a good description of the President's emergency powers. These are both tyrannical and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court wrote in the majority opinion of "New York vs. U.S." (91-543, 1992): "The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States."
Nor can the President's powers be expanded by an act of Congress. To allow the President, or the administrative agencies, to make rulings (executive orders, rules and regulations) having the force of law diminishes the power of Congress. It violates the separation of powers doctrine. It is, therefore, clearly a violation of our Constitution.
Last year, in "Printz et al v. U.S." (95-1478, 1997), the Supreme Court further defined the reason this "national emergency" and regulatory agency scheme (as seen today) is unconstitutional:
"Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day."
Presidents, and executive agencies, are not supposed to make law. Period!
The point is that, to regain many of our lost freedoms, all emergency powers now allowed to the President must be repealed. Only certain emergency powers, those necessary during war and expressly authorized by the Constitution, should be available. Else, the Constitution as written is little more than an historical document of little current validity.
Business and banks throughout Asia got themselves a bit overextended, it appears. Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan; all of them. . . . They just went merrily along for years, piling debt on top of debt. They continued assessing property up, up, up, and borrowing more and more on it every step of the way. Over here we call that an illegal scheme. It is kind of like the flimflam scam Hillary & Co. ran in the Whitewater deal, just on a much larger scale. The Asians were even selling stocks at 25, 30, and a whopping 40 times earnings, never concerned that their economy would experience a downturn -- or that they were doing something really stupid.
Then one big bank went under. Then a major brokerage firm. Then more banks and more brokerage firms. And, oh oh, suddenly the money is worth less and many businesses are in big trouble. Whoops! Suddenly half of the worth of Indonesia had evaporated. Then it's Thailand. Then South Korea. Then Hong Kong. Now Japan. This week, Japan announced that its banks are holding $715-billion in bad debt. Their house of cards is about to collapse.
But never fear. They found a piggy bank. They have a rainy day fund set aside for just such a purpose. It's called the International Monitory Fund. But there's a problem: The New World Order socialists at the IMF don't have that much money anymore. They lent it out to third world countries that never paid it back. The IMF made bad loans. Over and over again, they used our money to prop up third world countries -- dictatorships favorable to big multinational businesses, mostly -- that they knew were unable to pay the money back.
So, where will IMF get the money? Yup, you guessed it! Last year the administration asked Congress for an extra $3.5-billion for the International Monetary Fund. But, the 181 member IMF decided they want a lot more from us. So, to start, next month the administration will ask Congress for an additional $14.5 billion "quota increase" to bolster the IMF's financial strength.
That was announced last week. The word on the street this week is that it's going to take at least $145-billion of American money just to slow this Asian collapse. That comes out to $1,286 per every American taxpayer. And, that is exactly where Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin is looking: At us American taxpayers!
Rubin should still have about $35-billion in the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund. That means that American taxpayers will only have to pony up another $110-billion -- or about $960 each -- to support big business in Asia.
Anyway, here's the deal in a nutshell: The Communist Chinese Army has nearly $20-billion in worthless bonds floated over here. The American financial market, including our retirement funds, now own that bad debt. No problem though. We can eat that. It's just that thousands of retirees will not get as big of a check every month as they thought they would.
The real problem is with these rich multi- national corporations -- some of which are quasi-American corporations. Most of them are heavily invested in Asia. So, if the Asian economy collapses, the stocks of many of these corporations are going to take a dive for a while. Which means that our stock market goes south for a while. Which means that all of our retirement funds, 401k's, etc. lose big bucks (on paper) for a while.
"The free market is no longer at work in the field of international finance," said Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.), who is among the most outspoken critics of the administration's Asian financial institution welfare strategy. "We have privatized the gains and socialized the losses."
Indeed! The fat cats in Asia play fast and loose with their money. Lose some of it. And we Americans pay to keep their economy stable.
And so it goes, folks. The American workers are to put their noses to the grindstone and save the world again! . . . Well, we're to save the rich financial community part of the world, anyway. They make bad debts, we pay for them. Nice arrangement, isn't it.
Did we mention the Bobby Rubin made his millions by selling Asian "investment" bonds to American financial institutions? Well, he did. Most recently, it was those bonds from the Communist Chinese Army. So, to help keep face, he must now prop up the financial disaster created in Asia. That he plans to use our money for this, and none of his personal millions, is incidental.
We would also like to note that the dictator of Indonesia is reportedly worth about $40-billion. But, don't expect him to use his personal wealth to save his country's economy when he can pick up a few billion American bucks from us at little or no personal expense.
Talk about corporate welfare! Now our tax dollars are going to bail out nearly a quarter of the major financial-industrial enterprises of the world. But, hey, we've got plenty. We don't need anything here. And the $900 a year tax reduction the average American could realize from that same money Rubin wants to give to foreign fat-cats is little more than a drop in the bucket to American families. Right?
Remember that the next time Clinton tells you how great NAFTA, GATT and this global economy is. They forget about the unintended consequences. The rich keep the profits, we working folks pay their debts.
So, just make sure that you keep those money trees watered and healthy. You might want to plant a Victory Garden nearby, too. Cause this is only the first round, the initial harvest. It's going to get a lot worse over there before it gets any better. And you know how it goes: the American people cannot let those inept foreign fat-cats go broke.
[Note: Perhaps new readers might want to take the time to locate the Heads Up archives and read a little about the "Third Way" style of government. Pay close attention to the part where we get the oppressive regulations and the elite get the money and freedom to do as they wish. Then consider the World Bank, IMF, the UN, the Kyoto Agreement, the fast track arrangement Clinton wants Congress to agree to, and how all this will affect your pocketbook.]
The second most important function of anyone in government service is to obey all laws. Any bureaucrat violating any law must be arrested immediately, and should relinquish all pay and benefits until tried by a competent court.
What a dream, huh?
Well, how about we just have the ones who committed federal felonies arrested then? The ones I have in mind are just revenuers, so one would think they would be ripe for any young prosecutors wanting to make a name for themselves. And, yes, it's the IRS again.
Some of us might remember that IRS reform legislation of a couple years ago. We might also remember that so called "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" sham. We said back then that the taxpayer's bill of rights would not help anything. It didn't. In fact, things actually got worse.
As the Washington Times reported January 14: "An in-house audit of Internal Revenue Service activities released yesterday reveals that agency managers ignored federal laws and set revenue [collection] quotas for their employees. . . . According to the audit, 33 of 77 groups reviewed had enforcement goals set by upper management. The audit also uncovered that in 1995, IRS executives changed an IRS manual to delete references to taxpayer service and add concerns that the agency had lost touch with productivity goals."
The report said that there were changes made all right, just not legal changes. For instance, IRS manuals were changed to encourage upper and mid-level managers to set enforcement (illegal) quotas for the collection people. Also, the report found that enforcement statistics (quotas) were used in the job evaluation of about one-third of district supervisors.
Those of us watching the Senate Finance Committee's IRS hearings last fall will remember the former acting IRS Commissioner, Michael Dolan, assuring the Senate Committee that goals and quotas were not used. We might also remember that, before testifying, he raised his right hand and took a little oath.
Funny how all that stuff popped up right there in the IRS manual. Interesting, too, that it was there all the time. Proof of perjury, it's called. Dolan lied under oath.
Now, I know that everybody lies to Congress, and Congress lies to everybody. Still, if the law is enforced, it's perjury enough to get Dolan some free room and board in one of those federal white collar country clubs for a while. And, he will not be working at the IRS anymore. Also, if federal laws are enforced, he'll have plenty of friendly company there, too -- those 33 district supervisors and quite a few collection agents, for instance.
This law stuff is great if you use it right! However, now we need someone to actually enforce the law. That could be a problem.
So here's where the rubber meets the road, folks. Will the government enforce these brand new laws while they're still fresh, or will it signal us taxpayers that "the law" only applies to the serf-citizens? Because, clearly, here are at least 34 bureaucrats who are also felons. And the beauty of it all is that they were identified by their own coworkers -- the very people in the best possible position to recognize the extent of the problem and gather evidence.
Anyway, the House is now after the Senate to pass the "IRS fix-it" bill the House passed last year. And, the Senate is itching to get it done.
"I don't see anything that suggests that [the administration] has done anything more than try to deal with the sociology of the situation," Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee that will examine the bill, told the Wall street Journal January 13. The IRS study confirms "an abuse of power which occurs because they've got too much power. There are several areas I'm looking at pretty hard to fix that."
Of course the IRS didn't change anything, Senator. And they do not plan to change anything. IRS officials can come to the Hill and tell Congress any damn thing they want, no matter how big of a lie it is. Neither the House or the Senate will ever charge any of them with perjury, and there is really nothing else Congress can do about it.
Many of the people testifying at the Ruby Ridge, Waco and various Clinton scandal hearings lied a lot under oath. Everyone knew it. Yet, nothing was done to even one of them. So, it's no surprise that no one has any respect for Congressional Committees anymore. Why should they?
We do not need another taxpayer's bill of rights fix, as is being proposed. We already have a real Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and that is the one every single person in government -- including the tax collector -- must follow to the letter. Someone has to inform Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed nothing in the first Ten Amendments.
Interestingly enough, the leadership of most labor unions refuse to show their membership how the membership's money is being spent. But, this time, one group of union members pushed the issue. So, the union honchos took the membership to court. In this case, it's a group of pilots that is being sued by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
The pilots are winning, too. The D.C. Federal Court of Appeals already ruled in favor of the pilots last year. But, the fat-cat union bosses still refuse to give up information on what they think is their own personal piggy bank. So, the ALPA has appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court.
ALPA is getting help from other unions. Already, the AFL-CIO and the National Education Association have joined ALPA. Both unions filed 'friend-of-the-court' briefs against the pilots' position.
So much for supporting the Brotherhood of the Workers!
This whole deal started because of the intricate internal review process union members must go through to learn how their dues money is being spent. The pilots got tired of jumping through all the hoops and protested.
Interestingly enough, a bill titled the "Paycheck Protection Act" is slated to be 'revised and extended' in Congress this spring. So, the tactics of this nation's repressive union leadership may very well be in for a double whammy real soon.
Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson jumped right into the fray too -- generally, in support of the union membership. "This Supreme Court case is the best example yet of why working men and women need the Paycheck Protection Act," Nicholson said. "The Big Labor Bosses are terrified at the thought of losing this case, because it could ruin their plans to pour millions of dollars in compulsory union dues into the 1998 elections in an effort to elect a new crop of tax-and-spend liberals to Congress."
The Paycheck Protection Act would not exactly limit a union's ability to spend money on politics. Rather, it would require unions and other groups to get permission from their membership before using the organization's money to finance political activity. Even so, more is needed. In the case of labor unions, a full annual accounting of all funds should be made available to the membership in a timely manner.
Thanks to the efforts of David Feustel, the text may be now read at: http://www.netcom.com/~feustel Wait 10 seconds at that site to be automatically switch to Dave's main web page. The link to the State of the Union report is near the top of the page.
Anyone interested in a no-holds-barred report on how the federal government was able to usurp our unalienable and Constitutional rights may want to take the time to read this report. Consider it a companion piece to the Heads Up newsletter, and especially to the first article in this week's edition.
To date, eight universities are readying the text for distribution in their respective areas. Forest Glen Durland is working to post a copy on his web page at: http://www.jollytax.org/state98.htm, and is also sending printed versions off to selected Members of Congress.
And, Jeff in Michigan -- who we thank for archiving Heads Up -- recently said that he will post the full text somewhere near the Heads Up archives.
The report is also available in Word for Windows format for those who wish to make copies. All we ask is that you respect the copyright.