Patty found this in her files in July 1998. She'd written it several years ago and forgotten to send it out. In July 1998 a certain executive order on "Federalism" (EO 13083) was very much in the news. My, my, how little things change...

I suspect on thing has changed, though: the writer's belief that we can somehow do anything about this in the voting booth.

I heard a reporter on National Public Radio a few months ago report that the President cannot regulate tobacco smoking by teenagers via an Executive Order. Instead, Mr. Clinton will send his guidelines on controlling the teenage habit over to the FDA. Nicotine has just become the newest of addictive substances about to be regulated by the FDA. I wonder if they'll get around to laxatives and nasal sprays, also known to be addicting ... but that's another story. What I want to know here is why can't President Clinton simply do or order any thing he pleases with an Executive Order? Seems to me, he can.

In a recent Executive Order, President Clinton gave himself the power to declare any person or organization (and any person in that organization or giving money to that organization) a terrorist. Federal agencies can then arrest, deport, take the property of, fine or jail that person or anyone connected to the organization declared "terrorist" by Mr. Clinton. No need for an open trial with a jury of peers, just a secret government-run trial. President Clinton could declare me a terrorist for the act of writing this bit of "hate speech," for which I could be imprisoned, for instance. In another recent EO, the President handed 40 billions of taxpayer money over to Wall Street via a scam called "the Mexican bailout." If the President can do *these* things via Executive Order, why can't he regulate tobacco? This NPR reporter is not very well-informed, methinks.

Some real doozys of Executive Orders (read Dictatorial Edicts) have been signed into "law." The Executive Orders setting up FEMA basically make all American citizens slaves. Here are two of them to show you what I'm talking about. Check the Federal Register if you do not believe me:

• E.O. 10998 "...provides for the seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private, and ALL farms, lands, and equipment."
• E.O. 11000 " ... provides for the seizure of ALL American people for work forces under federal supervision, including splitting up of families, if the government has to."

What did I say? Slaves? That's right.

If the President can do this by Executive Order, then he can damn well regulate tobacco smoking by teenagers. I guess maybe he doesn't want to upset his current and future voters, which is why he is passing the onus on to the FDA, which is so well-beloved that it can stand some bad press...

Of course, all Executive Orders are unconstitutional; they merely have the appearance of legality because Congress passed an unconstitutional law called the War Powers Act back in 1933. This act purported to delegate Congress's legislative power to the Executive branch via Executive Orders under the cover of a "National Emergency." Of course, a National Emergency has been declared every year, by every President, since 1933. If some young punk gets his butt spanked for vandalism in Singapore, it's a National Emergency. If China says "boo" to Russia, it's a National Emergency. If there is drug-smuggling going on anywhere in the world, even or especially if the CIA is remotely involved, then it's a National Emergency. These Emergencies do not have to be obvious or even publicly declared, of course, because they have become routine, a simple roll-over operation every year since 1933.

HOWEVER, "All laws (and EOs are considered "law") repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison). Congress has no authority whatsoever to delegate its legislative power to the Executive branch. (Congress also has no authority to delegate its power to coin money and regulate its value to the Federal Reserve Bank, but let's save that scam for another time.) According to the Constitution, ONLY Congress has legislative power. Nothing in the Constitution says that Congress can delegate its primary function to other branches of the government or for that matter, the United Nations. If Congress passes such a law, that law is unconstitutional, and thus null and void.

It is a choice, people. Either we allow this corrupt legal fiction to continue or we demand loudly and aggressively a return to a Constitution and Bill of Rights-based Republic. And we vote that way in the ballot box and on our Grand and Trial Juries. If we do not, who knows what next National Emergency will arise (a lion breaks wind in the Serengetti, a teenager lights up a Winston; there's no logic necessary under this "law," you realize) and who knows what President Clinton will order next by Dictatorial Edict.

We are either citizens or we are slaves, as documented in EO 11000. We either demand and ensure a constitutional republic by our continual viligance, or we end up with a dictatorship, which is precisely where we've ended up. Make your choice. The time is now.

© Patricia Neill 1998

---