The cure for the evils of
democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on
Democracy, 1926
There
are often popularly head misunderstood powers in each branch of government,
with aggrieved parties clamoring that any given action is unconstitutional.
This
is indeed the case where ‘executive orders’ are concerned. There is no language
contained anywhere within the United
States Constitution regarding executive
orders.
A
brief review of such presidential actions is perhaps appropriate.
There
are two ways that presidents can enact initiatives without congressional
approval. Presidents may issue a proclamation, often ceremonial in nature, such
as naming a day in honor of someone or something that has contributed to
American society. A president may also issue an executive order, which has the
full effect of law and is directed to federal agencies that are charged with
carrying out the order. Examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive
order for the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman's integration of the armed
forces and Dwight Eisenhower's order to integrate the nation's schools.
Congress
cannot directly vote to override an executive order in the way they can a veto.
Instead, Congress must pass a bill canceling or changing the order in a manner
they see fit. The president will typically veto that bill, and then Congress
can try to override the veto of that second bill. The Supreme Court can also
declare an executive order to be unconstitutional.
Congressional
cancellation of an order is extremely rare.
Executive
Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or
agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority
has been granted to the President by Congress. The average
president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be
published in the Federal Register.
What
most in the electorate do not know is that an executive order can be retracted
by a subsequent administration with the same stroke of the pen that cr4eated
it.
With
that understanding, it is nevertheless beyong troubling that President Obama
has attempted a massive power grab overreach with an executive order posted
this week.
Consider
the following compendium of news stories on the subject and reflect on the
marvel of brilliance that the framers and founders bestowed upon their new
nation in a Constitution that limited the power of the federal government.
In
addition, the Madison Conservative will address the topic of what is now
euphemistically called ‘climate change’ in a later post, but the idiocy and
vapid hysterics of imbeciles on the left who claim that ‘a consensus of
scientists’ now maintain that we are the cause of said climate change forget a
funsdamental rule of science.
There
is never a ‘consensus’ of science – it is either true or false. To hear the
lack of intellectual heft on this point is staggering, but also what drives the
actions taken by a president who opts to ignore both science and our governing
document.
To
wit:
Through the stroke of a pen,
President Obama on Friday used his executive powers to elevate and take control
of climate change policies in an attempt to streamline sustainability
initiatives – and potentially skirt legislative oversight and push a federal
agenda on states.
The executive order establishes a
task force of state and local officials to advise the administration on how to
respond to severe storms, wildfires, droughts and other potential impacts of
climate change. The task force includes governors of seven states — all
Democrats — and the Republican governor of Guam, a U.S. territory. Fourteen mayors and
two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.
All but three of those appointed
are Democrats. The task force will look at federal money spent on roads,
bridges, flood control and other projects. It ultimately will recommend how
structures can be made more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as
rising sea levels and warming temperatures.
“We're going to need to get
prepared. And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of
our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change
that we cannot avoid,” Obama said last June, when he first launched a Climate Action
Plan.
“States and cities across the
country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready… And we’ll partner
with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the
risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as
green space and as natural storm barriers.”
The White House added in Friday’s
statement that even as the United States
acts to curb carbon pollution, officials also need to improve how states and
communities respond to extreme weather events like last year’s Superstorm Sandy. Building codes
must be updated to address climate impacts and infrastructure needs to be made
more resilient.
Critics of the order charge,
among other things, that it groups together everything from forest fires to
heavy rains as evidence of climate change - despite scientific testimony from
both sides of the debate.
“The devil is in the details,” a
former senior government official said earlier this month, referring to a
recently released study that proposed the streamlining between federal and
state agencies. “Who gets to decide what sustainability is? Or what its outcome
means?”
The chair of the study, Thomas
Graedel, a professor of chemical engineering, geology and geophysics, and
currently head of the Center for Industrial Ecology at Yale University, said at
the time of its release that the study “provides encouragement for parts of the
government to get together on projects of concern. There is no formula for how
it all works out.”
Officials for the EPA released a
statement on Friday afternoon praising the order, saying it will be vital in
their attempts to help local-level communities “adapt to a changing climate.”
“To meet our mission of
protecting public health and the environment, EPA must help communities adapt
to a changing climate,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in the statement.
“These Implementation Plans offer a roadmap for agency work to meet that
responsibility, while carrying out President Obama’s goal of preparing the
country for climate-related challenges.”
But critics say the order has the
potential to do much more, including:
• Hold back money to
communities unless they meet new standards on various items and agendas set by
the federal government. For example, using new policies that will encourage communities
to rebuild to pre-disaster standards instead of stronger ones.
• A possible mandate
to bring sweeping new changes to land use and resource policies.
• More control and
refocus of climate change data and use of it to push a new agenda into every
priority of the federal government.
• Create the need for
a new internal organization for coordination efforts during a government
sequestration and possible future shutdowns.
The task force includes Govs.
Jerry Brown of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Neil Abercrombie of
Hawaii, as well as Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley,
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. The panel also includes
several big-city mayors, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Philadelphia
Mayor Michael Nutter and Houston Mayor Annise Parker. All three are Democrats.
The task force builds on efforts
Obama announced for his Climate Action Plan last June, which include the
first-ever limits on climate pollution from new and existing power plants.
The plan is intended to reduce
domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent between 2005 and 2020. The plan
also would boost renewable energy production on federal lands, increase
efficiency standards and prepare communities to deal with higher temperatures.
The 12 hottest years on record all have occurred in the past 15 years.
Climate change skeptics, as well
as scientists, argue there is no proven link between extreme events and global
warming. Indeed, Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research who has called for climate
mitigation, argued recently that -- heat waves aside -- there is little
evidence for an increase in extreme events themselves.
Others find small links between
climate change and some specific natural disasters, saying storms like Sandy were worsened by
rising sea levels. But for other events, notably droughts and downfalls,
there’s no evidence of a global warming effect.
A Sept. 2012 editorial in the prestigious
journal Nature urged caution in drawing any such connection: “Better models are
needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.”
“The impacts of climate change — including an
increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy
downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing,
ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities,
natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,”
the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent
progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and
resilience.”
There’s no estimate of how much
the additional planning will cost. Natural disasters including Superstorm Sandy cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion
in 2012, according to the administration.
At a speech at Georgetown University
in June, Mr. Obama outlined executive actions he would take to require
government and private industry to prepare for the effects of climate change.
“The question is not whether we
need to act,” Mr. Obama said at the time. “The question is whether we will have
the courage to act before it’s too late.”
No comments:
Post a Comment