The wail across the vast, reasonable U.S. citizenry has been dismay and outrage that Barack Obama undid then-President Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform, which was worked-out with Congress and voted upon and passed by both Chambers of Congress. With a few words, maybe written, but with no name other than a “policy directive,” freeloaders may continue to freeload, living on your money and mine, with no need to provide for themselves – no need to show up at employment agencies, no need to find temporary work – no need to do anything but whip out the EBT card and cash the government check. Every segment of tax paying society had their taxes increased with this measure. EVERY entitlement is a tax on the people.
To date, I haven’t found a single link to Obama’s actual “directive.” Perhaps it was “spoken” to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who issued an “information memorandum” (statement), a snippet of which included this:
While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
Can it be that so few of our elected officials know and understand the law? What keeps them rushing to the floor of both Houses to denounce the disgust they feel at being neutered, and then vowing that these actions will NOT BE TOLERATED?
In looking around for an explanation of “policy directive,” I found this one from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), titled “Presidential Directives: Background and Overview.” An snippet of the opening summary says this:
From the earliest days of the federal government, Presidents, exercising magisterial or executive power not unlike that of a monarch, from time to time have issued directives establishing new policy, decreeing the commencement or cessation of some action, or ordaining that notice be given to some declaration.
The CRS says that some actions of the President, Executive Orders and Proclamations, are documented in the Federal Record and the Code of Federal Regulations. Others are cloaked in “official secrecy,” and yet others are “oral presidential directives.”
On Page 6 of the CRS, Executive Orders are explained as a way for the President to oversee the “faithful execution of the laws clause, and statutory law.” Making mock of U.S. law has been the doctrine of Obama. From immigration to ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act, and waiving No Child Left Behind requirements because 14 years isn’t long enough to fulfill the goals:
“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt told Politico. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”
Legal obstacles aside, the White House maintains that such executive orders are necessary for one simple reason: that Congress refuses to give the president what he wants. Source: Christian Post
Through Executive Orders, this President now has the control of your water, land, natural gas, and wired and wireless communications.
There are fake Executive Orders on important issues, too – like this one on abortion. A few months later, a member of Congress exposed the lie of that EO, said it was issued in exchange for ObamaCare votes, and wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Those of us paying attention were writing about it as it happened.
Through a “directive,” Obama ordered businesses to utilize the best available control technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and directed that these businesses “obtain preconstruction and operating permits” limiting greenhouse gases. Problem: there was no such available technology, so whatever restraints the EPA places on businesses seeking “permits,” is based on nothing. Question: did Obama have the authority to “direct?”
We already capture some carbon dioxide and use it for commercial purposes: in soda pop to make it fizzy, for example. When compressed, it is used in air guns, paintball markers, fire extinguishers, and to inflate bicycle tires. But we can’t use all of it for such purposes. So, “carbon capture and sequestration” is supposed to capture it in huge quantities and store it somewhere. In permanent tanks, for example, or by storing it underground in a rocky cavern at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and preventing its escape.
This technology is neither feasible nor affordable, and EPA knows it. So EPA says large plants can comply with the limits by increasing their operational energy limits—in other words, by decreasing their energy inputs rather than by decreasing their greenhouse gas outputs.
So, for example, EPA discusses installing more efficient boilers to heat the facility. That may be a good idea, but does the Obama EPA have the legal authority to require it as a means for compliance with the Clean Air Act? Probably not.
Declaring the use of “directives,” and “Executive Orders,” we cannot say we were not warned”
“Now that he’s sort of free from having to put out these fires, the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better,” said Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary. But, he added, “that’s no longer a requirement.”
Aides say the president will not turn his back onCongress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.
Executive Order, Proclamations, Directives – where are our elected officials? Why are they not demanding that the illegally done be legally undone?