The Cato Institute study co-authored by Bill Olson, “Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to ‘Run the Country’ by Usurping Legislative Power,” was quoted in this Enter Stage Right article “Congress Must Seize Back the Law-making Power.”
Our firm represented Presidential candidate Howard Phillips and The Constitution Party, who were named defendants in the case of Hooker v. FEC. On December 15, 1999, we filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which was granted on April 12, 2000. John Jay Hooker v. Federal Election Commission, et al., 92 F.Supp.2d 740 (2000).
Bill Olson and the study he co-authored, “Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to ‘Run the Country’ by Usurping Legislative Power,” were mentioned in this Insight on the News article.
Cato Institute Policy Analysis
by William J. Olson and Alan Woll
October 28, 1999
Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to “Run the Country” by Usurping Legislative Power
“The problem of presidents’ using executive orders to legislate, usurping the powers of Congress or the states, has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century,” William Olson, co-author of a new Cato Institute study on the abuse of executive orders, told the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the House Rules Committee today. “This raises fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers. The Constitution does not provide for the power of a president to rule by executive order.”
Bill Olson was asked to testify before the House Rules Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process. The topic of the hearing was “The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking?” Bill Olson also submitted answers to questions before the House Rules Committee’s Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we filed comments with the Federal Election Commission supporting the proposed changes to revise the definition of a “member” of a membership organization, so long as the changes set forth in FSC’s comments are incorporated into the adopted regulations. The first change is that membership organizations be permitted to waive the dues criterion for membership in appropriate instances according to predetermined specific criteria (such as financial hardship) approved by the organization’s governing body, restoring the pre-1993 status quo. Next, FSC requests that the expanded requirements imposed on membership organizations to state expressly the rights, qualifications, obligations, and requirements for membership in its articles, bylaws and other formal organizational documents and to make these documents freely available to its members be stricken from the final regulations. The last change is that certain proposed sections which reject the state law definitions of “membership organizations” and “member” be removed from the final regulations.