Not only does President Clinton not feel any shame
about his impeachment (as he told Dan Rather), Clinton
now feels stronger than ever, able to override the U.S.
Constitution and ignore Congress. He has been exercising extraordinary new powers -- never asserted by any
prior President -- both through Executive Orders (EO)
and abuse of his title of Commander in Chief. Rep. Jack
Metcalf (R-WA) says that Clinton has "made himself a
super-legislator by issuing executive orders that require
the appropriation of funds."
Clinton's good friend and defender of Oval Office
misbehavior, Paul Begala, put it like this: "Stroke of the
pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." No, it isn't cool; it's
hot with disdain for the constitutional rules that "all"
legislative powers belong to Congress and that "all bills
for raising revenues shall originate in the House." James
Madison called the accumulation of executive and
legislative powers in the same branch "the very definition
Clinton will be President for another year and a half.
By what the press has variously called a "blizzard" or a
"blitz" of Executive Orders, Clinton has grabbed new
powers for the executive branch, made broad public
policy changes, spent non-appropriated taxpayers'
money, and even tried to restructure our governmental
system. Clinton's Executive Orders are in awesome
tandem with his other power grabs through phony
"peacekeeping" expeditions, unauthorized bombing of
four sovereign countries, plans to create a "Homelands
Defense Command" to use the Army for domestic law
enforcement, monitoring of our bank accounts, and
databasing of our health records.
The term Executive Order does not appear in the
Constitution. The Executive Order authority derives
from the President's Article II, Section 3 power to "take
care that the laws be faithfully executed." However,
"laws" must mean laws that are already passed, not laws
that an Executive Order purports to create. The validity
of particular Executive Orders has often been questioned,
but neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever
defined the extent of their power, and courts have rarely
invalidated or even reviewed EOs.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed a national emergency and issued wide-reaching Executive
Orders, notably his 1933 bank holiday and prohibition on
private possession of gold, but those orders were subsequently ratified by Congress. The notorious EO 9066,
under which some Japanese-Americans were interned
during World War II, was subsequently upheld by the
Supreme Court under FDR's war powers. In 1952, the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down Harry Truman's EO
10340 to seize the nation's steel mills.
In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
invalidated Clinton's EO 12954, which attempted to
prohibit federal agencies from doing business with
companies that had permanently replaced strikers.
Clinton has issued 279 Executive Orders, but many
others are not numbered. The Presidential Decision
Directives (PDD) have a different sequence of numbers,
and many of them are kept secret, such as the notorious
PDD 25, by which Clinton presumed to give himself the
power to assign U.S. troops to serve under foreign
commanders and under foreign rules of engagement.
Some of Clinton's Executive Orders are federal land
grabs over property that belongs either to the states or to
private landowners. Land use and zoning are
quintessentially matters of state or local, not federal,
By Executive Order 13061, the American Heritage
, Clinton purported to give himself the
power to take over 10 rivers a year (later amended to 20 by EO 13093, of which 14 have been named),
whose adjacent lands will be put under the control of
Clinton-appointed River Navigators, each with a salary of
$100,000. Congress never authorized this land grab or
appropriated any money for it, so Clinton says he will
divert funds from 12 departments. This EO on rivers
takes governing authority away from states and localities,
and threatens private property rights guaranteed by the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments. (For details on EO 13061, see
the Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1998, p.4)
Clinton's surprise grab of 1.7 million acres of Utah
land for a national park in 1996 just happened to include
a trillion dollars' worth of clean-burning, low-sulfur hard
coal. Clinton's removal of this huge natural resource
from commercial availability tremendously enhanced the
value of the world's second largest source of
environmentally-safe coal, which just happens to be
owned by Clinton's Indonesian friends the Riadys, who
gave millions of dollars to Clinton's presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996.
For the Mexican and Brazilian bailouts, Clinton used
executive authority to raid a U.S. Treasury Department
fund set up in the 1930s for the specific purpose of being
available to stabilize the U.S. dollar. The President
certainly was not authorized to give this money to foreign
governments so they could make their loan payments due
to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's old firm, Goldman
Clinton's EO 13107 on Implementation of Human
attempts to bypass the constitutional
requirement that treaties, to be valid, must be ratified by
the Senate. This EO sets up a framework to implement
our alleged "obligations" under UN treaties on human
rights "to which the United States is now or may become
a party in the future."
The first treaty listed in EO 13107 is the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was
ratified by the Senate during George Bush's Administration in 1992. Aggressive implementation of this treaty
can open up a can of worms in regard to our First
Amendment rights, criminal law, our unique system of
federalism, and sex discrimination. The treaty's Article
23 even binds governments "to ensure equality of rights
and responsibilities of spouses during marriage," one of
the UN "rights" to be monitored by the Article 28
"Human Rights Committee" on which the United States
may have only one out of 18 members.
There are several unratified UN human rights treaties
that could be "implemented" under EO 13107:
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights was rejected by the Truman, Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush
Administrations because it refuses to recognize one of the
most fundamental American economic rights, the right to
own property. This UN treaty tries to bind us "to take
steps," including "legislative measures," to the "maximum" of our resources in order to achieve "full realization" of "adequate food, clothing and housing" for
everyone in the world. It would obligate us "to ensure an
equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation
- The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
would bring about massive UN interference in family life,
education, daycare, health care, and standard of living.
Article 43 sets up a committee of ten UN "experts" to
monitor the raising of children and our "progress" in
complying with the treaty's "obligations."
- The UN Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
would require us to follow UN/feminist dictates about
"customs and practices," "social and cultural patterns of
conduct of men and women," "family education," and
even revision of textbooks. It's easy to see that Clinton's
EO on UN treaties is a payoff to the radical feminists who
stuck by him during his Paula, Monica and Juanita
scandals, as well as a pursuit of his own global agenda.
Other Clinton Executive Orders include his EO 12919
of June 3, 1994, entitled National Defense Industrial
Resources Preparedness, which asserts plenary and
dictatorial authority over citizens, food, transportation,
energy, health, contracts, materials and resources to be
exercised by the National Security Council and FEMA
(Federal Emergency Management Agency). Many
wonder if this EO's real purpose is to grab emergency
powers if we are bitten by the Y2K bug.
Clinton's EO 13083 on Federalism of May 14, 1998,
which was a transparent attempt to rescind the Tenth
Amendment (as well as President Reagan's EO on
Federalism), did give Congress a wake-up call. After
congressional protest, Clinton said he would suspend it,
but it's still viable and Congress should pass legislation
to render it inoperative. (For details on EO 13083, see the Phyllis
Schlafly Report, July 1998, p.4)
Congress and the American people must call a halt to
Clinton's assault on our separation-of-powers form of
government by his unprecedented use of Executive
Orders. One constructive step would be to pass Rep.
Jack Metcalf's bill, H.Con.Res. 30. It provides that any
Executive Order that "infringes on congressional powers
and duties," or requires spending federal funds "not
specifically appropriated for the purpose of the executive
order," would be advisory only and have no effect.
Clinton's War in Yugoslavia
Congress and the American people should repudiate
and call a halt to Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia.
- Clinton unilaterally started this war by allowing a
Spanish Marxist, NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana,
to order U.S. planes to bomb a sovereign country that
never attacked or even threatened the United States or any
of our NATO allies. Clinton admitted it is a war when he
designated Yugoslavia and Albania as a "combat zone"
and called the captured U.S. soldiers Prisoners of War.
- Clinton's act of aggression was not authorized by
the U.S. Constitution, by NATO or UN charters, or by
any act of Congress. This is the mark of a dictator, and
we must not let him get by with it.
- Clinton tries to justify his evil bombing raids by
calling them a "moral imperative." Like New York Times
columnist A.M. Rosenthal, we are "moved to nausea"
when Clinton claims the war against Yugoslavia is
"moral" and "the right thing to do."
- The humanitarian argument is phony because
Clinton's bombing precipitated and exacerbated the
tragic refugee problem. All the people Clinton was
allegedly trying to help are far worse off than before his
bombing began. Clinton's bombing has killed innocent
people (which he dismisses as "collateral damage"),
destroyed civilian property, and united the Serbs behind
Milosevic to defend their homeland.
- Every day of Clinton's bombing creates costly
obligations for the U.S. taxpayers to bring refugees to
America and to rebuild the infrastructure he is destroying,
such as the Danube River bridges and the plants that
provide clean water, heat and electricity to civilians.
- It's Europe's job to deal with the Yugoslav
conflict, which has been going on for 600 years. Europe
is a rich continent, and it's time to end Europe's dependency on U.S. troops and taxpayer handouts. We have no
more national security interest in Yugoslavia than Europe
has in Haiti.
- We should cut our losses and get out before it's
too late, as Clinton did after 18 U.S. soldiers were killed
in Somalia, and as Ronald Reagan did after 241 Marines
were killed in Lebanon. Clinton is bogging us down in
a ground war against the Serbs, some of the world's
Let's answer some of the false arguments put forth
to defend Clinton's actions:
- "We have to support our troops." The best way to
support our troops is to cut off the money and bring them
home before more troops are killed or captured. Clinton
never should have sent those troops to Macedonia in the
first place. (Remember, those were the U.S. soldiers
ordered to wear UN uniforms.)
- "Congress authorized Clinton's action in Yugoslavia." That's false; Congress did not pass any approval of
Clinton's reckless bombing. The Senate resolution on
March 23 authorized air operations only, but that was not
passed by the House, so it has no legal effect. The House
resolution on March 11 authorized troops only as part of
a peacekeeping operation after peace was agreed to by
both sides (which never happened), and that was not
passed by the Senate, so it has no legal effect.
- "Yugoslavia isn't worth one American life, but
now that Clinton has put us in the war, we have to win it,
and that will take ground troops." What a terrible
proposition! We cannot permit a no-credibility President
to illegally plunge us into war, make horrendous mistakes
of judgment about the objectives and the strategy, and
then impose the obligation on American servicemen and
taxpayers to "win" the war illegally started. "Winning"
means U.S. troops will occupy Yugoslavia forever, and
we don't want Yugoslavia as a U.S. colony.
- "We must intervene in order to prevent a wider
war." In fact, Clinton's bombing has escalated the war
and spread it to other countries.
- "We have to intervene in Yugoslavia to maintain
our position as world leader." On the contrary, Clinton's
bombing shows the world that the U.S. is a trigger-happy
bully whose President wants to dictate to other countries
but doesn't have the know-how or the credibility.
- "If we don't win this war, NATO will be discredited and become irrelevant." Americans are not willing
to die for NATO's self-esteem. What's much more
important is that, if Congress doesn't reclaim its constitutional power to decide whether or not we go to war,
Congress itself will be irrelevant.
Was It All "According to Plan"?
State Department spokesman James Rubin has said
over and over again that "nothing went wrong," that
everything is going "according to plan," that they were
"not surprised" by the results, and that the American
people are at fault for lacking "patience." If that's true,
we must ask the corollary questions.
- Was it the Clinton-Albright plan to give Milosevic
the Rambouillet ultimatum knowing he would never
- Was it the Clinton-Albright plan to start the
bombing even though the Pentagon predicted that it
would not force Milosevic to a quick surrender, and
therefore would fail in its objective?
- Was it Clinton's plan to create a stream of a
million refugees from Kosovo? If so, why didn't he make
advance preparations to drop great quantities of food,
tents and sleeping bags? That should have been so easy
for our immense air delivery system.
- Was it Clinton's plan to count on heartrending
television pictures to arouse the American people to
"support our troops" by approving the bombing and then
sending ground troops to "win"?
- Was it Clinton's plan to expect American Prisoners of War? Is that why he kept 450 U.S. troops in
Macedonia after their United Nations mission had
expired, where they had no stated purpose and would
serve only as a trip wire to provoke U.S. involvement in
a Balkan war?
- Was it Clinton's plan to turn the much-disliked
Milosevic into a national hero, with the Serbs solidly
united behind him, making him far more powerful after
the bombing than before?
- Was it Clinton's plan to expand a civil war, that
was wholly contained within one small, faraway country,
to other countries, and additionally to stir up anti-American factions in Russia? All these results in "other"
countries were wholly predictable: the massive exodus
of refugees, the Muslim recruitment of soldiers from
elsewhere to fight in Kosovo, and the ominous anti-U.S.
and anti-NATO agitation inside Russia.
- Since Clinton loathes the military, was it his plan
to use the bombing to dramatically deplete our supply of
bombs and missiles, and drastically reduce the morale of
the U.S. Armed Services?
- Was it Clinton's plan to spend the surplus of
revenues now pouring into the U.S. Treasury on war, so
that it could not be returned to taxpayers? He has already
presented an invoice for $6 billion, predicted that the war
will cost another billion dollars a month, and that doesn't
even start to count the money we will be expected to
spend to rebuild the bridges and other properties that his
bombing has destroyed.
- Was it Clinton's plan to "wag the dog" with a
war in order to shift media and public attention away
from his personal, contempt-of-court, campaign-finance,
technology-shipment, and espionage-coverup scandals?
If so, it certainly succeeded.
Maybe it's really true, as James Rubin said, that
"nothing went wrong" and everything is going "according
Does Sovereignty Still Matter?
Bill Clinton and his Administration gurus are trying
to replace the concept of sovereignty, piece by piece,
with their global utopian vision. In trying to force the
sovereign state of Yugoslavia to kowtow to a U.S.-dictated "peace" agreement, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright demanded that Yugoslavia allow foreign troops
to occupy and control a portion of its territory. It is, of
course, a critical element of sovereignty that foreign
troops must not be allowed jurisdiction over a nation's
Albright cut to the core of the argument with a
demand that Yugoslavia surrender a piece of its sovereignty. She said: "Great nations who understand the
importance of sovereignty at various times cede various
portions of it in order to achieve some better good for
their country. We are looking at how the nation-state
functions in a totally different way than people did at the
beginning of this century."
That ominous ultimatum sounds like a double
entendre. Yugoslavia is not a "great nation," but the
United States is. It's becoming more and more evident
that the Clintonites are pursuing an incremental plan to
cede various portions of U.S. sovereignty in order to
achieve what they believe is the "better good."
Clinton's chief foreign policy adviser, Strobe Talbott,
was frighteningly forthright during his 22 years as a
writer for Time Magazine. Talbott enthusiastically wrote
that "national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea,"
predicted that "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete," and rejoiced in the coming "birth of the Global
It's a mistake to relax in the conventional wisdom
that Clinton is just muddling along without a coherent
foreign policy. Charles Krauthammer accurately defined
Clinton's foreign policy as implementing non-traditional
elements: "internationalism" (rather than sticking with
policies based on what's good for America), "legalism"
(the folly that treaties can make nations get along peacefully and can even regulate domestic law), and using
"humanitarianism" as the excuse for interventionist
escapades (rather than U.S. strategic, political or economic interests).
The Clinton Administration repeatedly cites international "obligations" as its authority for issuing overbearing Executive Orders and administrative regulations.
Americans are expected to defer to global governance
irrespective of whether the order comports with either our
Constitution or national security interests, or whether the
relevant treaty has even been ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Clinton is using this ploy of global "obligations" in
his environmental regulations to implement the unratified
Global Warming Treaty (the Kyoto Protocol), and in his
"Bring Beijing Home" task force to implement the
unratified UN Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
We've already seen numerous encroachments on our
national sovereignty from NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization, under which rulings by committees of
foreigners cannot be appealed to American courts and
even purport to order changes in U.S. domestic law.
We should also be on guard against probable attempts
to subject individual American citizens to regulations and
penalties imposed by committees set up under treaties
signed by other nations. Treaties that pose dangers to
American citizens even though we never ratified them are
the treaty creating an International Criminal Court and the
new protocol adopted in March under the Convention on
the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
The most dangerous attack on American sovereignty
by the Clinton Administration comes from its pretense
that we should abide by the now-obsolete 1972 ABM
Treaty with now-defunct Soviet Union. Only those who
don't believe in America as a sovereign nation could
argue that a treaty with a government that went out of
existence seven years ago can limit America's right to
protect the lives of our citizens against nuclear attack. A
dead treaty with a non-existent government cannot
protect us against offensive missiles from Communist
China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or even from the new
countries carved out of the old Soviet Union, which still
possess an awesome number.