Clinton issued a new executive order yesterday, reported on by both CNN and WND. Look at both stories - which would you rather read? CNN just blindly prints what is basically the White House press release. WND actually analyzes it, and points out the loopholes that CNN just glosses over. While I don't take everything WND prints as gospel, IMHO they do a FAR better job of covering most stories then the mainstream media. Read both for yourself and decide.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CNN - Clinton issues new order on federalism

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After strenuous protests by governors and mayors at his previous attempt, President Clinton issued a revised executive order Thursday on the division of responsibilities between the federal government and state and local officials.

The new order on federalism said Washington "should be deferential to the states" when taking action that affects them.

Federal agencies may pre-empt state law only when Congress gives express authority to do so, the order said, or there is clear evidence Congress intended to pre-empt state powers. But when state and federal rules conflict, the federal authority will be supreme.

Clinton's previous order, signed in May 1998, met with howls of protest when state and local officials complained they were not consulted. The order was suspended without taking effect, and the administration began negotiations with state and local officials.

"As a former governor," Clinton said, "I know how important it is for the American people that the federal government and state and local governments work together as partners."

He said his revised order would "strengthen our partnership with state and local governments and ensure that executive branch agencies are able to do their work on behalf of the American people."

State and local officials appeared satisfied with the rewritten order.

In a letter to Clinton, the leaders of seven major intergovernmental organizations said, "The executive order constructively responds to the concerns we raised during these consultations and provides to federal agencies strengthened guidance on the importance of federalism and state and local authority."

An excerpt of the letter, released by the White House, expressed appreciation to Clinton for "consulting extensively" on the revised order.

The order replaces a 1993 Clinton directive as well as one signed by President Reagan. Intended to guide federal regulators, the new order was written to combine the two earlier ones and bring them into line with current Supreme Court decisions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

World Net Daily - Executive Order 13083 replaced with new one

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- There's good news and bad news from the White House. The good news is that Executive Order 13083 has been officially revoked, but the bad news is that a new executive order on Federalism has replaced it.

Governors, mayors, and citizens from all political parties rallied together in an effort to abolish EO 13083 when it was signed in May 1998. WorldNetDaily first broke the news of what initially appeared to be a non-threatening document. Elected officials were not aware of EO 13083 until WorldNetDaily asked for comments, but they soon went to work to stop it.

Shortly after the nation's governors voted in the National Governor's Association convention in opposition to the order, President Clinton signed EO 13095 which suspended 13083. Many expressed concern that it was only suspended and not revoked.

The uprising of governors, who were joined by the nation's mayors, was over the clever wording used by President Clinton in EO 13083. Gov. Mike Leavitt, R-Utah, protested loudly and claimed that EO 13083 did not clarify previous federalism executive orders -- it destroyed them.

"This order (EO 13083) represents a 180-degree turn from all previous federalism aimed to restrain federal action over states," said Leavitt in disagreement with the Clinton fact sheet issued at the time. "The current version of this new order is written to justify federal supremacy," he stated last year.

The White House fact sheet claimed that President Clinton believed EO 13083 was necessary in order to "protect individual liberty." Critics insisted he was taking liberty away.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also spoke out strongly against EO 13083. He told WorldNetDaily that it gave further authority to government agencies to establish rules and regulations that would have the power and effect of law, even though Congress did not vote on such laws.

The new executive order is titled "Federalism," and does not yet have a number. Both Leavitt and the Republican Governors Association were contacted after it was issued. Leavitt's office has not yet responded to requests for comments. The RGA spokesperson was not aware of it, and Rep. Paul's office could not be reached because it was late in the day.

Kristen Fedewa of the Republican Governors Association was not aware of the new executive order, but she remembered the problems with EO 13083 and the way President Clinton tried to sneak it through unnoticed.

"Well, they're getting ready for NGA (National Governors Association convention) which is very fortuitous," said Kristen Fedewa when contacted at RGA headquarters. "They issued it last time right before we were getting ready for NGA, and I don't know if it was deliberate because they thought we'd all be busy, or they wanted us all to talk about it at NGA. My suspicion is the first one," she told WorldNetDaily.

When President Clinton suspended EO 13083, he promised to involve the nation's governors in the process of writing a better version. At the time, some questioned the need to do anything. In his limited remarks upon signing the new order yesterday, President Clinton claimed he had help with the revision, but he did not state where that help came from.

"As a former governor, I know how important it is for the American people that the Federal government and State and local governments work together as partners. The executive order on federalism I signed will strengthen our partnership with State and local governments and ensure that executive branch agencies are able to do their work on behalf of the American people. I want to thank the representatives of State and local governments who worked with my administration in developing an executive order that enables us to better serve all of the American people," President Clinton stated.

A press release from the White House press office also stressed the desire to enhance the partnership between the federal government and the states. That release claims a bipartisan group from seven major intergovernmental organizations of state and local officials assisted in the draft of the new executive order.

A letter signed by the participants was sent to President Clinton. It said in part, "The executive order constructively responds to the concerns we raised during these consultations and provides to federal agencies strengthened guidance on the importance of federalism and state and local authority."

The White House did not disclose who participated in the drafting of the new version of the order, nor did it provide a copy of the letter.

A comparison between EO 13083 and the new EO on federalism finds there were many changes made which would most likely please some former critics.

Definitions and policy were strengthened, and restrictions were placed on government agencies. There was no challenge to the ability of federal agencies to enact rules and regulations. They can still effectively do so as long as they consult with states first.

But, despite all the nice definitions contained in the revised version, many loopholes still exist to permit federal agencies to do virtually anything they wish.

The new version requires agencies to do some things in advance of enacting regulations that impact states, but there is nothing preventing those agencies from going forward with their plans after following the guidelines.

For example, section 3 (d) states,

When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall:

(1) encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives and to work with appropriate officials in other States;

(2) where possible, defer to the States to establish standards;

(3) in determining whether to establish uniform national standards, consult with appropriate State and local officials as to the need for national standards and any alternatives that would limit the scope of national standards or otherwise preserve State prerogatives and authority; and

(4) where national standards are required by Federal statutes, consult with appropriate State and local officials in developing those standards.

Similarly, when a federal agency plans to create a regulation that will preempt existing state laws, the new executive order places requirements that "the agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials in an effort to avoid such a conflict."

Nothing in the order prevents an agency from enacting any rule desired. They are required to consult, encourage, and inform but the results of those efforts do not require the agency to follow any input given by elected officials. Despite all the consulting, agencies are not prohibited from doing what they chose to do.

Section 6 of the new order deals extensively with requirements placed on agencies in the rule-making process, but at the conclusion of that section the loopholes are given to enable an agency to do as they please.

Here are some of the ways an agency can create any rule they wish, even if elected officials do not want the rule, according to Section 6:

• If funds to pay for costs incurred by local governments are paid for by the federal government, or if the agency consulted with the local officials prior to implementing the rule.

• If the agency provides an explanation in the preamble to the regulation giving the objections offered by the local officials and the reasons to ignore those objections.

• If the agency supplies copies of objections to the regulation to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The press release from the White House points out one more loophole: "At the same time, the Order makes clear that federal action is appropriate in the presence of a problem of national scope or significance."

A new bureaucrat will have a job in every federal agency because of the new order. That person will be required to be in place within the next 90 days with the responsibility of making sure the order is implemented properly in that agency. They must also sign off on any new proposed regulations to show that all requirements have been met.

Simultaneous with the issuance of EO 13083 last year, President Clinton also issued EO 13084 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The White House did not give specifics, but indicated that it will also be changed in the near future.

The new order will go in effect on Nov. 4, 1999, unless the president is again persuaded to revoke or suspend it, or unless Congress takes action to stop it.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), August 06, 1999

Answers

Bob: The only way this encroachment on our rights is going to stop is when the sheeple wake up and begin open revolt. It is just that simple. The rest is just political fodder.

-- Buffalo Bob (buff@hal.com), August 06, 1999.

It really doesn't matter to THIS problem, HOW Y2K turns out. THIS administration MUST BE STOMPED. I don't care if Y2K is a bump in the road or Infomagic. We have something oozing in our government and it MUST be dealt with somehow!

With the reported number of terrorists we have in the world and their reported capabilities and resources, I find it difficult to believe Klinton is still wasting oxygen. Unless they consider him to be on their side. Perhaps that explains his concerns with his own citizens owning weapons.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 06, 1999.

This is a continuation of the trashing of the 10th Amendment. This country is suppose to be ruled fromn the bottom up. No longer, The American people, like Esau, have sold their birthright for a bowl of soup.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 06, 1999.

NWO?

Hmmm. FBI just infiltrated a suspected Terrorist's residence and that was a family just preparing for Y2K!!!

NWO?

Just who are we protecting? The individual or the Government?

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), August 06, 1999.

Humm. Details not up yet.

Diane

White House Virtual Library...

http:// www.whitehouse.gov/WH/html/library.html

Search White House Website

http://library.whitehouse.gov/Search/Query-Website.html

Search Executive Orders... Federalism

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/search/executive-orders.html

New one not up yet.

Old one...1998-05-14 Executive Order 13083 on Federalism

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri- res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/5/18/4.text.3

Keep watch on... Whats New at the White House...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ WH/New/

(Not up yet).

NGA National Governors Association

http://www.nga.org/

(Someting will show up here eventually).

Press Release on Federalism
June 30, 1999
GOVERNORS URGE CONGRESS TO HALT FEDERAL PREEMPTIONS OF STATE LAWS
Voice Support for Federalism Act of 1999

http://www.nga.org/Releases/PR-30June1999Federalism.asp

NGA News & Information

http:// www.nga.org/subtocpublications.htm

See also... for interesting contrast...

GOVERNMENT SPIN...HOW BLATANT CAN YOU GET??

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001CQ9

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 06, 1999.

With one stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton erased the boundaries between all 50 states for any purpose he chooses. With one stroke of the pen, he disbanded every state legislature for any purpose he chooses. With one stroke of his pen, he has erased any State's Constitution for any reason he wants.

Something wicked this way blows.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 06, 1999.

You guys are paranoid right-wingers. We're entering a glorious era of peace and international cooperation! Soon, we'll have economic equality, just like China, and China share our military and economic might. That's not something that could have been accomplished by the vote of the people. It takes a vanguard, with real statesmanship, to deal "behind the scenes" as it were, over many years, to make this happen. Don't you think you're being selfish, going on about "freedom" and "democracy," when we're on the verge of global harmony? It'll be great, just like Star Trek: no money, no hunger, no bad news in the paper... Get with the program!

Utopia, ho!

-- Utopia, ho! (utopia@satire.pen), August 06, 1999.

Bob Grant for President!

-- Sick (ofBill@in.gov), August 06, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Thomas G. Hale: I'd like to see more about this Y2K family that was "inflitrated" as suspected terrorists. Sources? Links? Thanks...

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 07, 1999.

"Search Executive Orders... Federalism .... New one not up yet" Diane

Was browsing the archives and came upon an update for this one:

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:p di://oma.eop.gov.us/1999/8/5/14.text.2

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132 - - - - - - - FEDERALISM-------August 5, 1999

[snip] Sec. 10. General Provisions.

(a) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12372 ("Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs"), Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and OMB Circular A-19.

(b) Executive Order 12612 ("Federalism"), Executive Order 12875 ("Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership"), Executive Order 13083 ("Federalism"), and Executive Order 13095 ("Suspension of Executive Order 13083") are revoked.

(c) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.

Sec. 11. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 4, 1999

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 06, 1999.