Dogs mark their territory to establish their "turf." Politicians routinely and arrogantly mark their constituents in much the same manner. When the framers founded the Republic, they very judiciously established three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each branch was invested with various duties and responsibilities. The job descriptions were very precise. The primary reason the framers in their wisdom divided power, was to provide a system of checks and balances, and sufficient oversight. They understood that when any one entity acquired excessive power, the potential for abuse of that power was almost axiomatic. A teacher once told me "...the best form of government is an enlightened despot." Failing such enlightenment, a constitutional republic has proven to be the best form available ... when it works as designed. Time, inertia, and incrementalism, however, has slowly but inexorably eroded the form and substance of what the framers gave us. Abraham Lincoln created the precedent, F.D.R. became the master of the benevolent bastardization of the Constitution, and virtually every President since has exacerbated the corruption of both the form and the substance. Much (but not enough) has been written about executive orders. Abuse of power under the color of authority and executive orders are synonymous. An executive order is a decree by fiat (just because). The fact that "every president does it" does not make it right. Frankly, executive orders consistently usurp the constitutional authority of the legislative branch. The fascinating thing is that Congress permits the executive branch to continue to employ such a devastating abuse of power. When President Clinton proposed the Mexican bailout to Congress, Congress rejected it. What happened? No biggie. "We don't need no stinking congressional approval!" was the response, as the president gifted $60 billion to the monumentally corrupt 'families' of Mexico by executive order. And Congress didn't do anything. When President Clinton signed his so called "Federalism" executive order (13083) from England, and effectively abrogated the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution (to which he swore an oath) what happened? At first, nothing ... then, largely because of the attention and focus of the Internet, talk radio, and the resultant pressure brought to bare by p.o.-ed constituents, there is a "time out" to rethink the matter. Notwithstanding the questionable, and arguable authority for executive orders, Congress can (and should) act on every single one. Routinely they don't. Congress still (for the time being) has the authority to reject any executive order with a vote in Congress. Procedurally, if they do nothing ... that lack of action is assumed to provide assent. I submit that the executive order mechanism should be abolished. No one branch of government, and certainly no one man (or woman) should have the authority to rule by decree. Such a concept is, in and of itself, anathema to what the framers intended. If an issue is important enough to require an executive order, it should be important enough to compel Congress to act. We have allowed far too much to "slip through the cracks." Rules and regulations (created by and managed by non-elected bureaucrats) have the effect of law. Congress is supposed to have the sole authority to make law. A reasonable person would expect Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches, to jealously protect their turf. Congress should be waging war over executive orders if only to protect their constitutional mandate and protect their job descriptions. Likewise the abuse of power by judicial activists to "make law" rather than interrupt and implement it, should spark congressional disdain, and outrage. I recently received an interesting note which I share with you here: I am an employee of the postal service and on Friday 7/24/98 my supervisor gave a stand-up talk to the employees in our office. The announcement made was from a memo stating a new postage stamp will be released at the end of July honoring breast cancer research. The stamp shows no denomination but acts as a first class postage stamp worth $0.32. The stamp will be sold for $0.40 and the eight cent profit will be split between the Department of Defense Medical Research Program and the National Institute for Health. My question is "What type of breast cancer research is the DOD involved in and why?" My supervisor could not understand why I would care because it is such a pretty stamp and for a good cause. Several things struck me about the above: First, a $0.32 stamp should sell for $0.32. By what act of Congress is the U.S. Postal Service now collecting taxes for vertically targeted government agencies? How is the Department of Defense involved in breast cancer research, and HELL-O!, w h y? This is yet another example of what apparently has become institutionalized: abuse of power under the color of authority. But hey, the stamp is pretty, and for such a good cause -- so what? When Patrick Henry was confronted with an outrageous abuse of power he asked, "What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" When the above-mentioned postal supervisor was queried about an outrageous abuse of power, his response was "why care? it is such a pretty stamp and for such a good cause."