The nine kinds of issues which are listed to justify Federal authority in EO 13083 are listed below. There's no mention of 'emergency action' although perhaps this increases the scope of the 1933 WPA by 6, 7 and 8. Not that the WPA isn't a repeal of federalism and states' rights in the first place, especially since we've been under a state of emergency for many years, but I don't see that this one's really at all new. If anything it's just useful to reinvigorate the issue and I fell for it. --mark-- (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. >From: Patrick Poole <ppooleat_private> >Subject: Conference Call: EO 13083/Presidential Authority >Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:01:36 -0400 > >Conference Call Seminar: Executive Order 13083, Presidential Authority >and Congress Asleep at the Wheel > >The Center for Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation will be >hosting a conference call seminar ... to discuss the impact of >President Clinton's Executive >Order 13083 on "Federalism." This Executive Order, issued on May 14th, >lists nine kinds of issues that would justify unilateral federal >"emergency" action, regardless of the 10th Amendment. A short >presentation by journalist and noted executive authority expert Cliff >Kincaid of America's Survival will be followed by a question and answer >session. Additional topics that may be covered are the effect of >Presidential Decision Directives and the pending Senate ratification of >the UN Criminal Court Treaty. Prior to the conference call, you can view >a copy of EO 13083 and other related documents from our home page at: >http://www.freecongress.org/ > >[details omitted] > >EO 13083 allows the President to declare a national emergency, which >would then invest the Clinton-appointed Federal Emergency Management >Agency (FEMA) with the power to direct federal, state and local >governments. This would replicate the executive powers laid down in the >1933 War Powers Act and allow FEMA to control all communication >facilities, power supplies, food supplies, airports, transportation of >any kind, seaports, waterways and highways - and Congress would not be >able to debate the president's declaration for six months. > >The President could implement these powers under "any threat to national >security, perceived or real." One example of a threat that could >activate the War Powers Act is the breakdown in the national "cyber >infrastructure." Senator Robert Bennett, the Chairman of the Senate >Special Committee on the Year 2000 problem, recently asked the >Department of Defense officials if the military would be ready "in the >event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call >for martial law." The subsequent problems arising from the Y2K problem >may very well justify the powers claimed under the War Powers Act and EO >13083. > >[...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:10:32 PDT