As part of the colonies' effort to win their independence from England they boycotted imports from England. As part of the India's effort to win their independence from England they boycotted products imported from England. Purchasing products from England was a primary source of the lack of work resulting in poverty for citizens of India. Today the United States has the same problems India experienced. Purchasing products made in other countries results in the lack of employment resulting in poverty for the citizens of the United States. To free ourselves we must boycott products imported from other countries. We must make due with what we can produce ourselves. For a while the cost will be higher but in the not too distant future those costs will reduce resulting in increased employment within the United States. For a while our life style may be lowered but in the not too distant future it will return and increase.
It only takes the will to succeed.
Freedom of individuals leads to destruction. Here is why: Picture a pasture---a commons---on which all herdsmen are free to graze their herds. Such an arrangement works reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. But during an era of peace and prosperity the herds multiply, the inherent logic of the commons generates tragedy. Each herdsman acting rationally in his own self-interest will add to his herd. He alone will profit from an additional animal, whereas the environmental impact will be shared by all. What's one more cow? Overgrazed, grass eventually gives way to dust. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
There are resources we share with each other and with the world, air and water being examples and so the tragedy of the commons still obtains. It explains the depletion of fisheries and aquifers. It explains the pollution of skies and seas. Technology may delay the tragedy---by increasing crop yields or fuel efficiency---but so long as the human population continues to grow it cannot in the long run avert it. Which do we want more environmental health or economic growth. Long term we cannot have both. In a world that is limited, freedom in a commons brings ruin too all.
GW voted for requiring a three-fourths majority in Congress to override a presidential veto. The convention was not as concerned so it approved a two-thirds majority to forestall executive powers. You may rue that day.
US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, GW being president. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. It may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. The President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice; a two-thirds majority is often required to override an Executive Order.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.
As I have often said the president is not the problem, Congress is the problem. The president can do nothing with which two thirds of congress and/or court does not agree.
Congress: Bingo with billions. --- Red Skelton
