Regionalizing Global Governance

People in our society tend to choose their words carefully in order not to offend anyone. When someone can’t see over the crowd at a game, he’s not short, he’s vertically challenged. I’m a lousy cook, and you may say that I’m domestically challenged, but that won’t change the fact that my 10-year old (the only one in our home who still has taste buds) smothers everything I make with ketchup.

Likewise, the Chief Executive of the United States can claim all he wants that he "feels our pain," but that can no longer hide the fact that he wants all power for himself. On May 14, 1998, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 13083, called "Federalism" which defined the division of powers between federal and state government. A White House fact sheet claimed that President Clinton believed (EO) 13083 was necessary in order to "protect individual liberty," when in fact, it was the granddaddy of all efforts to grab power.

Quietly signed by Clinton in Birmingham, England, EO 13083 was a blatant attempt to toss our republican form of government onto the dung heap of history. The policy represented a 180 degree reversal of the balance of powers defined by the Constitution, which was designed to severely restrain federal authority over states.

EO 13083 created a firestorm of protest. Governors, mayors, county commissioners, and state legislators all pressured Clinton to withdraw it, and asked Congress to take action. Caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the president finally issued EO 13095 suspending 13083.

Just as everyone thought EO 13083 was a dead issue, it has arisen from the ashes like the mythical Phoenix on August 5 of this year. Claiming to have worked with the states on this rewrite, Clinton issued EO 13132 and gave assurances that this "federalism" EO would please former critics. Definitions were strengthened and restrictions were seemingly placed on federal agencies.

This new version of "Federalism" does set out guidelines to consult and inform affected states which federal agencies must follow before enacting regulations. Yet, in spite of all of the new safeguards, EO 13132 is riddled with loopholes. A closer reading of EO 13132 reveals the restrictions are but window dressing.

Incredibly, after the federal bureaucrats have fulfilled their obligation to consult with the affected states, they do not have to heed any input from elected officials. They can proceed as they choose—with or without state’s approval.

Section six identifies the ways agencies can ignore objections from the states. Federal agencies cannot enact rules with federalism implications which impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments, unless:

• funds to pay for costs incurred by local governments are paid for by the federal government;

• the agency obtained approval of local officials prior to implementing the rule;

• the agency provides an explanation in the preamble to the regulation, giving the objections offered by the local officials and the reasons to ignore those objections;

• the agency supplies copies of objections to the regulation to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

President Reagan’s Executive Order on Federalism, EO 12612, revoked by President Clinton, stated without ambiguity, "Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government." Bill Clinton defines his version of federalism with the same shadowy semantics that has defined this presidency, "Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people." Who will decide what issues are of national scope and significance?

In Ronald Reagan’s version, uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government default to the states and to the people. In Clinton’s version the federal government is always supreme. EO 13132 only requires that the feds proceed with caution in the face of such conflict. Goodbye Tenth Amendment and State’s Rights.

In order for a society to remain truly free, the slightest hint of tyranny must be stamped out at every turn. To keep tyranny in check, power must be close to the people. The people governing are supposed to be our servants. They should have to face us at our kids’ Little League games, at the barber, and at the corner coffee shop. Instead our president prefers to send our sons off to die and exploits our daughters while stripping all of us of more and more of our rights. V ks