abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Tom Rose

Introduction

When President Clinton recently visited Britain he engaged in a freedom-destroying action that almost went unnoticed by the general public. On May 14, 1998, while visiting the city of Birmingham, England, Clinton signed, without the usual fanfare and publicity that generally accompanies such an action, an executive order which sought to destroy our republican form of government and to help convert it into a centrally-controlled unitary state. That is, President Clinton clandestinely took action to arrogate to himself powers that the United States Constitution prohibits to the central government by reserving such powers to the politically sovereign States or to the people. This act of tyranny was aimed at destroying America's republican form of government. If not nullified by Congress within 90 days of signing, Executive Order #13083 was destined to go into effect without the knowledge of the vast majority of Americans.

At one time in American history, such a bald power move by a president would have generated immediate efforts for impeachment. But, sadly, since similar abuses to subvert the U.S. Constitution by Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the members of Congress have ceased to be trustworthy defenders of the Constitution. Today, too many senators and representatives have become "captive" to the political power emanating from Washington, D.C, because the wielding of such power fosters their own political power and private wealth.

Also, the great mass of the American public, in its present widespread ignorance and apathy concerning constitutional issues, has become politically impotent. This is the result of the general voting public, gradually and wrongly coming to view the God-given institution of civil government as a provider of their own incomes and livelihood through salaries, welfare payments, grants, loans, or other so-called "transfer payments." Today, more than 30 percent of American families receive one or more checks each month from the federal government. This creates a tremendously potent "voting bloc" which serves to dim citizens' perception of what the constitutional role of the federal government really is. At the same time, it creates an almost irresistible force for expanding and centralizing the power of government at the national level.

Birmingham, England

At the time that President Clinton signed his executive order, it was purposely left unnumbered presumably so that less public attention would be attracted to it. That was also the reason, I presume, that the E.O. was signed in Britain without any publicity instead of in these United States.

Our attention to what had transpired came shortly after the signing through a friend who attends our monthly Constitutional Study Group. Upon hearing this news, we immediately checked the White House Web Site on the Internet. Sure enough, the unnumbered E.O. was listed under the misleading term "Federalism." I say "misleading" because the E.O. actually attacked what little is left of our republican form of government. The E.O. was to become effective 90 days after being signed by the President and published in the Federal Register, if the Congress took no effective action to rescind it. We contacted our U.S. Congressmen, two U.S. Senators, plus a few other freedom-loving representatives, but to no avail. We did not even get a sleepy response, just nothing! We proceeded to advise a network of patriotic friends in order to foster more widespread knowledge of this threat to constitutional government in America.

After some time, the number 13083 was assigned to the E.O. This made it easier to inform interested persons because a numbered E.O. can more readily be found by those who want to learn about it. Gradually, we started hearing scattered opposition to E.O. #13083. Finally, a groundswell of opposition developed, but none of this opposition was reported by the mainstream news media.

E.O. #13083 Suspended

Thankfully, we received notice on August 5, 1998, that President Clinton, under pressure, had "suspended" E.O. #13083, and also that the U.S. House of Representatives had voted by voice to nullify the freedom-threatening E.O.

Please note that I have set off the word suspended by quote marks. This is because a suspension can easily be rescinded any time the President deems it fruitful to do so. Also, there is nothing to stop Clinton from issuing a "clone" E.O. anytime he deems that doing so would be politically expedient. It seems that his "suspension" of the E.O. came as a result of strong opposition being raised by local mayors and state governors because they had not first been consulted! Clinton, therefore, promised to "consult" local and state political authorities before issuing another such E.O. So, it should be evident to concerned citizens that the threat to our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is not yet over. (A commonly used tactic that is employed at the national level to subvert local and state civil magistrates from fulfilling their oath of office is to buy their cooperation with promises of federal grants and handouts!) The purpose of this essay is to review and discuss the temporarily set-aside E.O. #13083 so that readers will be on guard against attempts to undermine constitutional government in America.

Analysis of Executive Order #13083

President Clinton began Executive Order #13083 with this introduction:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution between the Federal government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows....

In 1987 President Reagan issued Executive Order #12612, which was designed to restore the original division of federal-state responsibilities that our Founding Fathers had designed, but which Reagan felt had gotten out of kilter over the years. In fact, President Clinton's E.O. followed Reagan's E.O. word-for-word in many places, but subtly deviated from it in many particulars. A careful reading of the two executive orders is required to fully discern the differences between the two.¹ President Clinton's focus seems to be on guaranteeing the existing status quo of federal-state relationships, that is, on the current situation in which the national government has arrogated to itself powers not granted by the U.S. Constitution. So, when reviewing and comparing the two executive orders, one must keep in mind the contrasting ideological views held by the two persons who issued the contrasting orders.

By way of example, Reagan's introduction states,

...in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers ... (italics added).

But Clinton's introduction states,

... in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal government and the States that was intended by the Framers... (italics added).

These are seemingly slight differences in nuance, but a careful study and comparison of the two E.O.s reveals two contrasting ideological views of what constitutes a proper state and federal relationship. Reagan's was conservative in nature and tried to restore lost foundations, whereas Clinton's is seemingly conservative in nature while, in reality, it attempts to lock in the existing status quo in which the federal government dictates to its creators, the states.

President Reagan in E.O. #12612, was intent on restraining the unconstitutional growth of centralized power that was being exerted by the Executive branch of the federal government. In short, Reagan was making a conservative attempt to restore the American Republic to what our Founding Fathers had intended it to be; that is, a constitutional republic of widely dispersed powers. He was concerned that the politicians and bureaucrats in the central (national) government had unconstitutionally arrogated too much power to themselves at the expense of the state and local governments.

President Clinton, on the other hand, as will be clear when we consider his executive order, is not at all concerned about limiting the unconstitutional powers now being exerted by the Executive Department and its increasingly all-powerful government agencies. In fact, he is interested in turning the American Republic upside down and converting it into a highly-centralized unitary government with all power emanating from his office (that is, from the Executive Department). This is anything but the kind of civil government envisioned by America's Founding Fathers! Clinton's entire political life has been oriented towards overtly (where he could politically risk doing so) or covertly (when no other method was available), enhancing and aggrandizing unconstitutional powers to himself in order to foster his own political ends. These ends have always been the use of unrestrained raw power wielded at his own discretion!

In section 2 of both E.O.s, these guidelines are given for federal agencies to follow (though Reagan included Executive departments as well as agencies):

Reagan's: (a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.

Clinton's: (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is based upon a system of checks and balances.

At first glance, Clinton's "system of checks and balances" sounds good, but what does it really say? Reagan's is more clear cut, that is, to limit the power of the national government.

But let us continue. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In his 1987 E.O., Reagan stated:

(g) Acts of the national government--whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature--that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.

Clinton's "Birmingham, England" E.O. deleted this statement. The reason, of course, is that Clinton hates constitutional restrictions which limit the power of the federal government and which serve to disperse political power widely among the states and local governments. Remember what Clinton is quoted as saying to prime minister Tony Blair during a telephone conversation regarding what Tony Blair sees as laggard steps to disarm American citizens. The quote goes something like this, "Give me time. Remember, we have this piece of paper called the Constitution."²

Another power-limiting clause used by President Reagan in his E.O. #12612 during 1987 was also omitted by President Clinton in his E.O. #13083 on May 14, 1998. I cite it here to give readers an opportunity to savor the contrasting ideological viewpoints held by the two presidents. (Reagan: conservative and adhering to the Constitution; versus Clinton: at enmity with constitutional government and always searching for ways to open the door towards centralized controls, while deceptively creating the guise of adhering to constitutional principles.) Clause (i) of Reagan's E.O. #12612:

In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level.

It is pertinent at this phase of our comparison between the two executive orders to make this point: President Washington and later presidents issued many executive orders which instructed people in the Executive Department and the various agencies which the chief executive oversees. These E.O.s were limited to just that, the internal operations of the Executive Department. When E.O.s are issued according to the constitutional spirit of limited government, they generally serve a useful purpose in instructing the people in the Executive Department (including the many governmental agencies which now are controlled by the President) to keep constitutional principles always in mind. This attitude, which is so evident in Reagan's executive order, is completely absent in Clinton's.

It was Presidents Abraham Lincoln, during the last century, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the present century who, under the excuse of "national emergency," set the stage to use presidential executive orders to impose their will on the general populace by extending the reach of E.O.s beyond the scope of the Executive Department itself. Such use is a devious and threatening use of unconstitutional power which serves to undermine and destroy the constitutional limitations on federal power. Presidents after FDR have increasingly used executive orders to arrogate unwarranted political power to themselves under the guise of presumed "national emergencies." A complacent Congress and a seemingly brain-dead public have acquiesced to such freedom-destroying moves.

Freedom-Destroying Provisions of E.O. #13083

In Section #3, Clause (d) of his E.O. President Clinton stated:

...Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances including:

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 code 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.

In Section #7 Clinton's E.O. stated that E.O. #12612 of October 26, 1987 (Reagan's), and E.O. #12875 of October 26, 1993 (one of his own) are revoked and stated, "This order shall be effective after 90 days after the date of this order" (which was May 14, 1998).

Questions to Ask

I won't belabor this essay by critiquing each and every one of the above eight points, but only suggest that you read each with a critical and suspicious eye, because the man making them has a mind-set that is diametrically opposed to the spirit of American federalism. Clinton thinks and breathes a form of unitary statism that is suffocating to freedom and self-responsibility. Note that each of the eight points opens the door to eradicating constitutionally limited government by unilaterally transferring state powers and responsibilities to the central government. And each point would be weighed, interpreted, and applied by bureaucrats in the Executive Department and federal agencies in order to implement their already-centralized statist mentalities.

In short, if E.O. #13083 had gone into effect (and the threat of another E.O. just like it is still very likely if Americans should happen to drop their guard even for a moment), it would have opened the door to turn our constitutional republic on its head and work to transform America into a centrally-controlled unitary state. This is especially so when we consider,

1. Clinton's recent Presidential Directive #63 entitled "Critical Infastructure Protection," which is nothing less than a blueprint for seizing, at the federal level, control of our nation's financial and economic infastructure whenever the President deems it politically convenient to declare a national emergency; and,
2. the threatening existence of FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and its blueprint to turn our nation of 50 sovereign states into ten federal districts managed by FEMA (which now has its own highly-armed SWAT teams).³

Some questions to keep in mind when mulling over the eight points listed in Clinton's E.O. are:

1. When matters involve more than one state, the Constitution gives no carte blanche power to the federal government, other than the limited power granted by the so-called interstate commerce clause (which has been wrongly interpreted since the administration of FDR, to aggrandize the power of the Executive Department at the national level). There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the various states from freely engaging in mutually beneficial agreements among themselves.⁴
2. When it comes to "a significant amount of harm," ask yourself which level of civil government has imposed greater harm by unwise policies, the states or the federal government? What and who determines "a significant amount of harm?"
3. When there is an alleged "need" for "national standards," who is to make the determination? And what level of government is to submit?
4. When states allegedly have not "adequately protected" individual rights and liberties, who is to decide what is adequate?
5. Historically, the states have been regarded as the "experimental political units" of the American Republic. Each has the sovereign political authority to devise policies for the benefit of its own citizens; and this is in competition with other politically sovereign states. Such practice in diversity is good and healthy, not detrimental, to American citizens because the better policies practiced by one state have often been copied by other states. Note how the gist of every point made by Clinton presumes that centralized statism is preferable to decentralized republicanism. The next step from centralized statism at the national level is centralized statism at the international level, or what is popularly called the "New World Order." Mr. Clinton's support of the United Nations shows that he is strongly oriented toward one-world government.
6. Finally, remember that this list was compiled (at least) under the guidance of, if not actually by, the man who recently lied to and misled the American public about his liaisons with a White House intern; who is under official investigation for having lied to a federal grandjury; who engineered clandestine financial aid from Red China for political activities; who gave away technical military secrets against the clear advice of his military advisors, to the State of Israel and Red China which have ended up in the hands of other countries who regard our country as their enemy, and allowed them to develop nuclear ability; and who has been connected with so many people that have met strange deaths when the possible revelation of information threatened to lead to himself. So the question arises whether our incumbent President can be trusted to be truthful to the American public or uphold his oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies.⁵

Conclusion

While this essay was in the process of being written, President Clinton ordered air attacks on foreign sites that allegedly have been used to wage "terrorist war" on the people of these United States, an action that could involve our country in a foreign war, or which might stimulate terrorist bombing of some of our major cities, or even the release of deadly biological organisms in our larger cities. Some critics have warned that Mr. Clinton may have ordered the air strikes to deflect attention away from his personal political problems. Time may reveal where the truth lies. Freedom-loving Americans should be aware that the possible "fall out" of Clinton's latest military action carries a strong chance of widespread domestic terrorist activities. This, in turn, could set the stage for his declaring a national emergency and imposing martial law, thereby nullifying the U.S. Constitution which guarantees certain God-given rights to American citizens.

Action to Take

Since God is the One who raises up rulers and deposes them at His will, we should pray that He will unseat the ungodly persons who hold high offices in our country and raise His own people to positions of power and influence. Also, we, as citizens, should ask ourselves if Mr. Clinton's performance in office is such that we should support him or work to have him replaced with someone who is more trustworthy. Last, we should seek God's guidance as to whether or not He is judging us by giving us the kind of political leadership that a morally rebellious people deserve, and, if so, we should repent and ask His forgiveness.

At this very time Clinton is struggling to save his presidency, 1) from the sexual improprieties he has recently admitted to while in office, thus showing that he lied while under oath to tell the truth; and 2) from the clearly unpatriotic, but also possibly illegal, treasonous, and impeachable actions listed in point #6 above, which if properly investigated might lead to his resignation or removal from office. If such a beneficial occurrence for our Republic should take place and we have another person installed in the office of President, would it mean that freedom-loving Americans could sit back and sigh with relief?

The answer is no! No man can safely be trusted to wield power unless he is tightly restrained by the "chains of the Constitution," as Thomas Jefferson wrote about over 200 years ago, and who is also restrained by God's revealed Word (see Deut. 17: 14-20). We must always be on guard, because of the evil that lurks in all men's hearts, against possible tyrannical acts of political rulers.

The Bible often warns us not to put our trust in princes or in men (Ps. 118:8-9). This warning is especially important to heed in the dangerous age of big and ever-growing centralized government in which we live today.

Tom Rose is retired professor of economics, Grove City College, Pennsylvania, and a member of the National Reform Association's Board of Directors.

See his biography on the American Enterprise Publications web site.

Endnotes

1. Space does not allow a careful comparison of President Reagan's E.O. #12612 and President Clinton's E.O. #13083. Readers who are interested in comparing them can find the two executive orders at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/govdocs/980722.govdocs.sxs13083.html

2. This is a paraphrase. I have used the exact quote in another article, but I am unable to locate it at the moment.

3. Space precludes delving into P.D. #63 and FEMA in this essay, but readers are hereby forewarned to look into these and other threats to the very existence of the American Republic. My intent is not to be alarmist, but only to awaken the overwhelming majority of citizens who are so busy working to support their families and raise their children that they tend to be unaware of machinations at high government levels to rob them of their national heritage of freedom (Eph. 6:12).

4. One such interstate agreement that worked well (ORSANCO) was by the states along the Ohio River to reduce the pollution in that river.

5. This writer believes that Clinton has shown himself to be a great enemy to constitutional government. His whole political life been dedicated to fostering centralized statism.

back to top