PERSPECTIVErnJefferson or Mussolini?rnby Thomas FlemingrnThe right side of the World Wide Web has been aquiverrnwith reports on Executive Order 13083, otherwise knownrnas Bill Clinton’s attempted coup d’etat. How seriously shouldrnwe take the Clinton plot to abolish the last vestiges of states’rnrights? Setting aside the equivocations and dissimulations thatrnmark all of Mr. Clinton’s official utterances, one can reduce hisrnexecutive order on federalism (issued in Birmingham, England,rnin May) to two points: a very weak restatement of the principlernthat, under the Constitution of the United States, somernpowers are reserved to the states; and an aggressive and widereachingrndeclaration of the conditions that entail an exceptionrnto the Tenth Amendment.rnThe first two exceptions, which involve interstate relations,rnare more or less justifiable. The rest are subjective to the pointrnof being capricious. The federal principle is to be suspendedrnwhen, for example, there is “a need for uniform national standards,”rnwhen “decentralization increases the costs of government,”rnor when states either have not protected individualrnrights or have failed to impose regulations from the fear thatrnbusinesses would relocate. It is hard to conceive of any significantrnactivity of state government that could not be usurped onrnat least one of these grounds.rnSimultaneously with his decree that gives the coup de gracernto constitutional federalism, the President also issued ExecutivernOrder 13084 on Indian Tribal Governments. On the surface,rnthe EO appears to establish “regular and meaningful consultationrnand collaboration with Indian tribal governments in therndevelopment of regulatory practices on Federal matters thatrnsignificantly or uniquely affect their communities,” etc., etc. Inrnfact, the effect—and purpose—of the order is to circumscriberntribal sovereignties within a ring of federal regulations that willrnleave them only the name of sovereignty. The penultimate sentencernis ominous: “This order shall complement the consultationrnand waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of the Executivernorder, entitied ‘Federalism,’ being issued on this day.”rnClinton’s orders are less alarming and more depressing thanrnthey appear at first sight: less alarming because they only confirmrna stahis quo that has been established since the 1960’s; andrnmore depressing because it probably does not matter what declarationsrnand ultimatums are issued by the President. Realrnpower is in the hands of a permanent establishment whosernbrains are in the federal judiciar)’ and whose brawn consists ofrnthe tens of thousands of armed federal agents who, on mere suspicion,rncan raid your home, drive a tank through the walls, fillrnthe rooms with toxic gas, and lay down a line of fire to preventrna few stiay survivors from making their escape—all to the applausernof congressional cheerleaders like Tom Lantos andrnCharles Schumer. (With Democrats like Lantos, who needsrnNazis?)rnIf mere words meant anything, then Ronald Reagan’s beautifulrnExecutive Order 12612 on federalism would have restoredrnthe republic. Reagan’s order not only reaffirmed the TenthrnAmendment but went so far as to proclaim that “the people ofrnthe States created the national government when they delegatlO/rnCHRONICLESrnrnrn