PDA

View Full Version : Power Grab


11-07-2001, 06:18 PM
There is a very disturbing trend that is coming to light in the wake of the War on Terrorism. It has nothing to do with how we deal with Afghanistan or the rest of the Arab world. It concerns the effect on our domestic institutions. What I am referring to is the massive power grab being executed by the Executive branch of government. Here are three disturbing items to illustrate:


1. On Nov. 1 the President signed an executive order that nullified the Presidential Records Act which took effect in 1981. The act states that all confidential communication between a president and his aides must be released 12 years after he leaves office. What's disturbing is that the President is seeking to subvert the way laws are enacted. The act was voted on by Congress and signed into law by a previous president. You can't just sign an executive order that effectively nullifies the law. here is link - http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1106/p2s2-usju.html


2. John Aschroft said he is going to deny Oregon doctors the ability to prescribe federally controlled drugs if the doctors take part in an assisted suicide. Oregon voters twice passed a referendum approving a Right to Die law. Regardless of your views the issue, you have to find it disturbing that a non-elected federal official would be so brazen as to interfere with what is clearly a matter better left to individual states. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011107/us/assisted_suicide.html


3. The USA Act was passed several weeks ago. The Act gives the government sweeping powers to surveil and detain suspected terrorists. My issue is that Terrorist is vaguely defined and thus the Act is susceptible to abuse. RICO was similiar in that it gave the government expanded powers to go after Organized Crime. Today RICO is widely abused to prosecute minor drug offenses.

11-07-2001, 07:36 PM
As an archivist and historian and someone who worked with Presidential Papers when I was a fellow at the Library of Congress, I find 1. terribly disturbing. The President is a public servant and his papers are therefore public record and need to be protected as such. Few remember that W's daddy also tried to run an end around federal records legislation when he left office but was taken to court by accountability groups (like Public Citizen) and groups of historians. Here is a quick summary of that case I got online:


As a result of the PROFS [filed in 1993--KJS] Case the White House was unable to carry out plans to destroy Presidential records stored on the White House electronic mail system at the end of the Bush Administration. Instead, the Archivist, at that time, Don W. Wilson, signed an agreement on January 20, 1993, with former President Bush that purported to give Mr. Bush control over the disposition of any Presidential materials on backup tapes and hard drives from the White House computer system. At the end of 1994, Public Citizen on behalf of the American Historical Association, filed an action to prevent the National Archives from implementing the Bush-Wilson Agreement, which was disturbingly similar to former President Nixon's effort to retain control over the Watergate tapes after he resigned. In February, 1995 the trial court ruled that the Bush-Wilson Agreement violated the Presidential Records Act and was an unconstitutional effort by the former President to control public records. The Clinton Administration took an appeal from this ruling, but later abandoned the appeal, marking the death knell of this effort to retain private control over public records.


I guess a fear of public scrutiny runs in the family. Certainly Bush Sr. is elated that his kid is trying to overturn a law that kept him from being the sole overlord of the public records created by him and his staff. Its reprehensible. I sincerely hope that this gets challenged in court and overturned. I suspect it will.


KJS

11-07-2001, 08:40 PM
This letter by the Society of American Archivists' President bolsters Boris' claims about the seriousness of this matter.


KJS

11-07-2001, 10:49 PM
One of the problems in the Clinton Administration was the abuse of executive orders. I expect better from Bush on this issue. We will see I guess.


The Ashcroft thing really has been bothering me. I have posted before on why I think Ashcroft was a horrible pick for AG and have posted about the lack of a consistent political philosophy among conservatives. (Liberals too, but I'll just get on conservatives here.) Here there is a convergence between Ashcroft's lack of a consistent philosophy and his cowardice. Many conservatives are hypocrites on the issue of enforcement of federal criminal laws. Clearly, the federal government has the legal authority to enforce those federal laws found to be constitutional. However, conservatives are often slow to question the propriety of federal intervention when they like the particular overreaching regulation. When the feds gore the conservative ox, the conservatives spring to life and wail. States' rights are OK on some issues, but not when it comes to sports betting (I shouldn't give credit to McCain for being a conservative, but he does want to take away states' rights with his moronic college sports betting ban) or drug laws. Another example is the NRA, which will somewhat meekly fight for 2d Amendment rights when it comes to improper federal regulation of gun-free school zones, but beg for federal enforcement of "the laws already on the books," if it will help their latest marketing ploy. If they were consistent they would fight against the federal laws on the books. (I'm a member anyway, but also belong to a group that isn't hypocritical.)


In the end, I think the lack of a consistent political philosophy has helped certain conservatives market themselves, but has caused long-term damage to what should be their goals. Ashcroft's latest blunder is an example of this. He doesn't get the idea that if the federal government regulates Oregon's doctors, someday it will decide to turn its power against people Ashcroft likes.(However many that may be.)

11-08-2001, 02:27 PM
I was rooting for Racicot for Atty Gen., but I am a little biased:)

11-08-2001, 03:51 PM

11-11-2001, 03:28 AM
Thanks for the info. Good to know there is organized resistance to the edict.