Print 79 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Aug 13 at 8:06 PM

Checks and balances? What checks and balances?

America's government is a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, as laid out by the Constitution -- well, in theory at least.  However, in recent decades, the executive branch has tended to do what it wants while the grumbling legislation is placated by piles of tax loopholes for their campaign donors and special interest handouts for key local constituents.

I. Cybersecurity Bill - Down, But Not Out

Take the "Cybersecurity Act", bill, S.2105 [PDF], for example.  A redraft of earlier House bill H.R. 3523, the Act gained the support of the President by modifying its proposed implementation to include funneling more of Americans' private data through the increasingly Big Brother-esque U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

While the President was delighted by the promise of the DHS gaining more access in the name of fighting a shadowy, vague Chinese threat, privacy advocates and fiscal conservatives were horrified by the bill.  Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) called the bill "Big Brother writ large."

The bill also stalled in the Senate thanks to growing concern from the corporate community, who urged their affiliated Republican Senators to move to block the bill.  Business leaders supported some of the provisions that would tear down legal barriers between government and private sector information sharing.  But they balked at the proposal of mandatory security guidelines -- another key part of the bill.

Well, bill or no bill the Obama administration is confident they can put the policies in place.  The key to subverting the stubborn legislature, argues administration officials is to substitute executive orders in the place of Senate votes.

Homeland Security
President Obama hopes to use executive orders to expand the DHS's cybersecurity role.
[Image Source: CyTalk]

White House press secretary Jay Carney says that executive orders have not been ruled out, assuming the Senate continues its freeze on the bill.  He comments, "In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed."

Obama's slogan on this and other issues is "we can't wait."

II. Continuing the FDR Legacy

Indeed the White House will likely move aggressively to put in place executive orders with agencies such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to put in place systems forcing businesses to meet security screening.

Even the prohibition on sharing consumer information with the DHS may be able to be torn down by executive order.  By making the program "voluntary" with incentives, the White House could circumvent laws prohibiting the executive branch from forcing unwanted, unlegislated regulation on businesses.

If President Obama does choose to bypass Congress, the approach may draw criticism.  Senator Susan Collins (R- Maine) -- one of the co-sponsors of the bill -- said she would not be comfortable with that approach, despite her support for the provisions.  She comments, "I'm not for doing by executive order what should be done by legislation."

One of the Democratic co-sponsors -- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- seemed okay with the idea, though.  Asked if she would approve of executive orders as a substitute, she said, "I suppose if we can't [pass the bill], the answer would be yes."

Here's a quick rundown on recent President's use of the executive order [source]:

Executive orders per year
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech]

Of course these recent numbers pale in comparison to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who put in place 3,467 orders during his twelve years in office.  He may have propelled the nation out of a depression, but he set a costly precedent with those orders, one that his successors have followed -- to a lesser extent -- to this day.

Source: The Hill

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I fear for the future...
By wookie1 on 8/7/2012 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, both parties push for the expansion of the scope and reach of the government. The main difference between them is what type of control they push for.

RE: I fear for the future...
By Ringold on 8/7/2012 10:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
Bush: Patriot Act
Obama: This

Seems like, when it comes to the police state, elements of both parties are fully aligned.

At least, elements of the Republican party; some elements are clearly opposed. I'd assume, hope, that some parts of the Democrat party is as well.

RE: I fear for the future...
By FITCamaro on 8/7/12, Rating: 0
RE: I fear for the future...
By Ringold on 8/8/2012 12:19:19 AM , Rating: 3
I try to give them credit, but you're right. They screamed about the Patriot Act when Bush was pushing it, now that their guy is in office their reauthorize it every 2 years I believe it is.

RE: I fear for the future...
By GotThumbs on 8/8/2012 9:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
A huge part of the problem is that so may see it as either 100% or 100% right. The two party system is so divided and with Bills loaded down with fat these days....the main reason for the bill becomes insignificant. Each Bill should stand on it's own. People need to get away from the prejudice of the party system. Get back to the constitution and let government govern the running of the country. Let the people govern their personal lives. The core of this country is the idea that one does not have to agree with someones ideals or options...but they should respect the other persons right to free thinking.

To address a hot topic and make my point. While I would prefer the American flag never be burned...As an American and a believer in the foundation of this country...I have to respect someone's choice to burn it. As long as their actions do not interfere with my freedoms. Now if that person happens to receive burns by their actions...Its not my responsibly to tend to their burns or pay their medical bill.

Freedom is not free and does not come easy, but I think its worth the work. People who are not willing to contribute...are not deserving of this privilege IMO. Too may have been allowed to slack....and Obama eliminating the Work requirement for welfare just encourages that practice.

RE: I fear for the future...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/12, Rating: 0
RE: I fear for the future...
By 91TTZ on 8/8/2012 10:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like, when it comes to the police state, elements of both parties are fully aligned.

It's good to see that the opposing parties can agree on something.

Totalitarianism- Change we can ALL believe in.

RE: I fear for the future...
By KCjoker on 8/8/2012 7:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Obama voted for the Patriot Act and he chose to continue it as President.

RE: I fear for the future...
By Bad-Karma on 8/9/2012 1:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Um, you seem to forget that the Patriot Act was taken almost word for word from defeated Anti-terror legislation originally drafted by Joe Biden.

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki