Some have the opinion that the War and Emergency Powers Act is an extra constitutional decree that enables a president to bypass Congress when needed, and employ whatever measures are deemed appropriate. Yes, some radical fringe groups have made misleading statements about executive orders from time to time, and the Internet is abuzz with much paranoia from conspiracy groups. However, most citizens seem unaware of the more rational and yet troubling shift to direct rule in these orders.
On June 3, 1994, President Bill Clinton recorded Executive Order No. 12919 to blanket all necessary issues in an emergency (this law was released on June 6, 1994). It encompasses all the executive orders previously applicable to emergency management of the country. The only thing this order doesn’t do is define what the national emergency must be in order for this executive order to be endorsed. Virtually anything disruptive has the potential to be declared a national emergency in order for this law to be executed.
Part VII is of concern to many who have read and studied this order. It’s titled “Labor Supply.” Section A says it will be the secretary of labor’s job to “collect, analyze, and maintain data needed to make a continuing assessment of the nation’s labor requirements and the supply of workers for purposes of national defense.” Under section C the secretary is to “formulate plans, programs and policies for meeting for defense and essential civilian labor requirements.” Section E speaks of the secretary of labor appraising the jobs and the skills that will be critical in satisfying the labor requirements of defense and of essential civilian activities. Keep in mind that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the organization behind the civilian labor camps. It is also the agency charged with making this executive order run smoothly.
In section 602 under Part VI, we see what it means to a common citizen. In the case of a presidential decree of national emergency, the president of the United States, with the aid of federal agencies, will have wide-ranging, direct control.
Order No. 10999 specifies control of all transportation, “regardless of ownership.”
Order No. 10997 speaks to control of all forms of energy: “petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal. . . , and atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.” The federal government would have complete and total control over who will have electricity and who will not.
In Order No. 10998 farmers would become part of “the production or preparation for market use of food resources.” This is somewhat similar to Soviet era controls, when all farmers in Russia labored for the government. This control of human resources and equipment might be necessary in a crippling national emergency, but troublesome if, as decreed, it can be implemented on little more than executive decision.
Order No. 10998 specifies control of all fertilizer. This means that any “product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium” can be confiscated by the government. Difficult if you want to maintain a private garden.
Order No. 10998 also deals with control of all food resource facilities. This means “plants, machinery, vehicles (including on-farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage).” It includes “livestock and poultry feed and seed.”
Order No. 11005 directs control of all water resources. All usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States! All the water that can be “managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements.” Not only can your water supply be turned off, but authorities could take any water you have stored in your house.
How many citizens have really pondered the implications to a free, democratic society in these orders? Yes, many basic liberties and freedoms would be early casualties in an executive order-mandated response to a truly major national emergency. More troubling are the religious liberty implications to total control of labor and livelihood. Make no mistake about it, these executive orders do allow for an instant and massive evolution in our government.
Significantly, these orders do not address the value and character of human life. They tend to organize the American population at the level of domesticated animals, which have no control over their owners, have no possessions, and in many cases even work for their owners.
In recent years we have had an extraordinary number of presidentially declared “national emergencies.” Each time, of course, FEMA has been involved. There have been cases in which people were not even allowed out of their homes, “for their own good” (after Hurricane Opal and the floods in Pennsylvania). President Clinton once commented, “If Congress doesn’t cooperate with me, I’ll just run the country by executive order.” Interestingly, Clinton signed more executive orders than any prior president. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, of course, was the one who set in place the modern presidential dependence on executive orders when he mobilized the nation to combat a great depression. Arguably his measures worked, while greatly strengthening the direct powers of the presidency.
In 1933, Congress essentially made it possible for a president to exercise powers that could easily go beyond the intentions of a democratic populace. In using an executive order to establish the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush is following a now well-established pattern of presidential action. However well-intentioned this action might be, it does underscore the ease with which executive orders can move events (note the generally expressed alarm at the initiative and the significant fact that vouchers, a not totally unrelated part of the overall presidential plan, were soundly defeated by popular vote in key states during the presidential election).
Willis Wilkerson is a freelance author with degrees in business administration and theology. He writes from Grand Junction, Colorado.
While this discussion can very easily flirt with paranoia, it is worth some serious consideration in a democratic republic jealous for its continued liberties. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist deals somewhat with this topic in his thought-provoking book, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime, published in 1998 by Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Editor.
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend