<<  <  >  >>

"Many believe

Clinton administration's motion to dismiss

Environmental Quality describe a

the case, stating that "the president did

Federal program that will be created

that AHRI clearly

something he was not empowered to do,"

by executive order issued later this

violates the doc-

and adding that in this matter "not one

summer that will require reprogram

-

trine of separa-

branch of government operated within its

ming of over $2,000,000 of agency

funds for this initiative.20

constitutional authority." Benson rejected

tion of powers as

the administration's argument that Congress

intended by our

had implicitly ratified the president's action;

Even members of the president's own party

nonetheless, he noted that Congress could

expressed concern about the precedent estab-

Founding Fathers

make the lawsuit moot: "Congress can sim-

lished by AHRI. Rep. Owen Pickett (D-Va.)

by completely

ply pass the appropriate legislation support-

noted that

bypassing the

ing the president, and the president will no

doubt sign it into law."15

the unusual nature of the arrange-

Congress."

ment being proposed where the exec-

American Heritage Rivers Initiative

utive branch of the U.S. Government,

through its agencies, was undertak-

On September 11, 1997, Clinton's

ing the implementation of a new

American Heritage Rivers Initiative was

Federal program that has not been

established by EO 13061. The impact of the

authorized by Congress and for

program is not clear; however, some analysts

which no moneys have been appro-

believe that AHRI will require all land-use

priated by the Congress to these

decisions affecting designated rivers to

agencies to be expended for this pur-

receive approval from the AHRI "river naviga-

tor."16 According to Rep. Helen Chenoweth

pose. This strikes me as being quite

unusual and if successful, reason for

(R-Idaho), once a river has been designated as

alarm. Federal agencies are generally

part of AHRI, the control exercised by the

considered to be creatures of

river navigator over the use of land may

Congress but this will no longer be

extend over the entire watershed of the river,

true if they can, by unilateral action

from its source to its outlet, crossing state

lines in the process.1 7 Moreover, the river nav-

of their own, extend their reach and

usurp moneys appropriated to them

igator's authority over the use of land is not

for other purposes to pay for their

limited to environmental concerns. AHRI is

unauthorized activities.2 1

designed as well to address such social issues

as poverty, education, and hunger.1 8

In addition to having created the program A report on AHRI by the House Committee

without congressional authority, the presi-  on Resources added:

dent seems also to have appropriated, or at

least redesignated, funds for the program, in

Many believe that AHRI clearly vio-

violation of Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the

lates the doctrine of separation of

19

Constitution.  As Rep. James Hansen (R-

powers as intended by our Founding

Fathers by completely bypassing the

Utah) observed:

Congress. This was best stated by

James Madison in Federalist Paper

The Administration has informed

No. 46 that, ``The accumulation of all

[the  House  Committee  on

powers, legislative, executive, and

Resources] that there are no fiscal

judiciary in the same hands, whether

year 1997 or fiscal year 1998 funds

of one a few or many, and whether

specifically authorized or appropri-

hereditary, self-appointed, or elec-

ated for this American Heritage

tive, may justly be pronounced the

Rivers Initiative. However, docu-

very definition of tyranny.'' For

ments provided by the Council on

5