Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/10/2008 9:32:28 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Climate Change: Imagine a group of lawyers at work on guidelines for instituting an imperial presidency. There would be an uproar, and rightly so. But what if the goal is to blunt global warming?
Well, then, in that case it’s OK to bypass the checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, right? We can’t think of a single proposal on the right side of the political spectrum in which academics could construct a manual to help the president unilaterally fast-track policy because the legislative and judicial gears of government move too slow.
The media and law professors would storm the White House if President Bush decided the executive branch alone would cut taxes or privatize Social Security, bypassing Congress.
But global warming? Now that, they believe, is a threat the president should be able to deal with without the constraints of limited power.
With that in mind, a team of researchers at the University of Colorado Law School spent six months assembling a 213-page handbook that will provide the next president, should he choose to use it, a blueprint for rapidly addressing climate change issues through executive authority.
“We’re defining the playground in which the president can play,” Alaine Ginocchio, lead author of “Boundaries of Executive Authority,” explained to the Boulder, Colo., Daily Camera.
Part of the law school’s Presidential Climate Action Project, the report suggests that “there exists significant authority, without further action by Congress, for the president to take action by executive order to implement various aspects of climate change policy.”
But Ginocchio’s use of the word “playground” is telling. The unspoken intent is to justify the actions of an executive branch governing outside of the system that was thoughtfully designed...
(Excerpt) Read more at epaper.investors.com ...
link?
One would think that such extra-Constitutional activities would be grounds for impeachment.
Presidential Orders and foreign “agreements” have become the order of the day, no pun intended. They need to be scrapped, but wont, since instead of checks and balances, we have the three brances “in cahoots” as we say down heyah.
I see an “agreement” with the UN as the main way the gun grabbers will go after the Second Amendment also.
I thought the “playground’s limits” were defined by the Constitution, not by law professors. But maybe that’s just me.
The President's Executive powers, through the EO for example effect change to some existing Federal executive function or other Federal activity such as managment of Federal land. The President cannot control climate change through EO.
This book’s premise could in fact be used to inact “OTHER” policies of the left and not just climate change.
I did notice however that they are now starting to use the term ‘climate change’ instead of Gorebal warming.
The Pubs would never have the guts to do it. The scientists who know Global Warming is a scam are made to look like loons. TV show trying to expose it are dissed. This step toward global or at least national socialism here is not going to be stopped unless people in all 50 states start to complain on a daily level to their local and state govt. agencies that this is not to be tolerated. Hiking taxes will be the first step and if the enviros get their way, we will be looking like Albania!
or a bullet
The stage has long been set on a major fight between the branches of government over the use of the Executive Order.
“US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section 3.
Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.
Other types of executive orders are National Security Directives and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (presidential decision directives).”
In recent years, there has been a glut of Executive Orders issued from the POTUS, with Presidents issuing orders that even at the onset were not based in existing law, clearly unconstitutional and seemingly paranoid. In fact, several US Presidents have issued Orders that, under ill-defined situations of declared Martial Law, would theoretically give them absolute power.
Even with such existing orders, subsequent Presidents have issued their own versions of absolute power decrees. Fortunately, none have ever been executed.
President George W. Bush made several extraordinary contributions to the Executive Order debate. To begin with, he embraced what appeared to be a 19th Century Presidential philosophy that the President conducted foreign policy, and only *executed* the domestic policies enacted by Congress.
That is, he did not believe in the President *initiating* domestic law, that this was the responsibility of Congress. And this, *despite* the enormity of the Patriot Act and its massive reorganization of the executive branch.
Instead, as *executor* of the laws passed by Congress, he included the now notorious “signing statements” to legislation, that were in effect Executive Orders detailing how he intended to enforce the law.
Unfortunately, the Republican Congress ran amok with their newly restored power, and paid the price at the next election. And the Democrat Congress which followed was so ineffectual and ill-disciplined that Bush finally had to disavow the old philosophy and return to Presidential activism.
To date, US courts have only overturned two Presidential Executive Orders. The infamous Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1933; and an order issued by Bill Clinton to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.
Otherwise, the Executive Order has long been a dangerous and extra-constitutional means. The Marbury v. Madison decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has long held that the President cannot be compelled to act by the other two branches, though he can be restrained from action. And yet, there is no normal restraint that can be applied over the Executive Order.
Logically, the President does need the power to direct the affairs of the executive branch. However, the use of Executive Orders, National Security Directives, Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and Presidential Signing Statements have clearly exceeded the constitutional powers authorized the POTUS.
So the question becomes: How can these powers be reduced, to restore a balance between the three branches of government?
As the now-openly anti-constitutional University of Colorado Law School has shown, the issue can no longer be back burnered. Congress and the court *must* reduce the power of the Presidency or our entire system of government is threatened.
Now do you see why I’ve always opposed Bush’s claim of executive supremacy and his expansion of arbitrary federal powers? Even if I agreed with Bush 100% on what he did, he set the precedent of an unchecked executive for whoever follows him.
Looks like people are starting to realize this.
So we would think. For example, our current copyright terms with retroactive term extension are unconstitutional, but we supposedly did it to comply with treaties, so it stands (the congresscritters did it so Mickey Mouse's first movie wouldn't go into public domain).
Bush should’ve already ended the practice of “Executive orders”. Perhaps his final act as President will be to end it.
Bubba had something like 2000 executive orders. Bush was not the first.
That would turn a lot of people into Jeffersonian watercans.
Nope, has nothing to do with it. It is based on the Constitution's sole reason for copyright: incentive to create. The person created the work based on the incentive given by the old term, so constitutional purpose fulfilled. Extending the term after the fact adds no more incentive for the creation of that work, since it's already been created, and is thus outside of the Constitution's grant of power to create copyright.
Plus the copyright power is for limited times. Successive increases in term are essentially "Forever on the installment plan" and are thus unconstitutional, especially when they are retroactive.
I'm not just talking about the number of orders, many of which for Clinton and Bush were purely foreign policy, running the minutae of the Executive, establishing various useless committees, or even frivolous. I'm talking about practicing Executive superiority by infringing on the Legislative through orders and signing statements. I'm talking about "The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to us."
Thank you for enlightening me. You really do know your stuff. While I am a lawyer, I do not claim to be affluent in every area of the law. Intellectual property is one area I lack experience and expertise. There are so many self proclaimed Constitutional scholars around here that I sometimes have to set them straight. My bad for “assuming” in response to your post. God Speed
btt
Thanks. I'm not a lawyer but I wouldn't mind being one. I am very interested in all law based on the Copyright Clause so I've studied it a lot, read decisions, transcripts, filings, complaints, attorney commentary, etc. A lawyer who was recently representing me cringed when I told him I do this for fun. Maybe it being your job for years takes the fun out of it?
There are so many self proclaimed Constitutional scholars around here that I sometimes have to set them straight.
Feel free to set me straight whenever I screw up. That's one way to learn.
And will hand them the tools for implementing socialism!
Great, so we’re seeing the 3 dumbo-crats running for President of the USA gonna shoot the economy in the foot just to appease these clods in the name of Global Warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.