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"In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed."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 Ringold on 8/7/2012 10:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
enough damaged has been caused that it will take 16 years of good leadership to fix it.

The institutional damage, I think, is done. We now expect this sort of thing, speaking generally.. There's no loud million-man marches on DC. The agencies follow his legally questionable commands seemingly without flinching. The media doesn't shine the spot light on any corruption, waste, or abuse -- unless its a Republican, or they're shamed in to a brief story.

Forget which one, but one of the framers of the constitution (Franklin?) said democracy, specifically our type of government, requires the occasional armed rebellion to keep it in check. That's not really feasible any more, and the population isn't very enthused in holding their feet to the fire.. A good 40% or so even like it this way.

So.. I think the whole house of cards will have to crash and burn, history repeat itself, complete with most the tragedies seen in history several times before, before some group of libertarians attempt this experiment again, probably somewhere else entirely.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but even if Romney wins, so what? When almost half the country votes in line with a cult of big government, it's just a matter of time.

RE: I fear for the future...
By Pneumothorax on 8/8/2012 1:19:24 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but even if Romney wins, so what? When almost half the country votes in line with a cult of big government, it's just a matter of time.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy"

By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/8/2012 8:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
Thus the concept of 'starving the bear'. The government can't grow without funding, unless it can continue to increase deficits without limits.

Since we can't even seem to slow it down, let alone have the discipline to stop or reverse it, I can only think we will need to change the inscription on Ellis Island to read "abandon all hope ye who enter here". The US is probably to big to bail out.

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki