By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

Sometimes I like to fantasize about what I would do if I were king.

If you have been paying attention the last 50 years, you may have noticed that the nation has been steadily creeping toward a stronger central government in Washington and a stronger presidency. If current trends continue, we'll have a dictatorship in the not too distant future, and I would like to announce right now my candidacy for the job.

I can assure you that I would be a benevolent monarch. I would take my seat in the Oval Throneroom with the purest of intentions to issue edicts that would make this country better and stronger... edicts that would grant more personal freedom even while doing away with all of this cumbersome balance of power we erroneously call democracy.

Congress, the courts, state and local governments would still exist, of course, but only as advisory groups. We could eliminate billions, perhaps trillions, in unnecessary expense if I were king. Efficiency would increase a thousand fold.

Of course, you would have to put up with a few of my personal idiosyncracies. For instance, the music police would make periodic sweeps to make sure there was at least one Tommy Dorsey CD in every collection. Don't worry. I would also require some Boston, Paul Simon, a good variety of classics and opera, and some gospel.

But you would be free to choose the rest.

I would, of course, collect half of each person's income and hold it in safe keeping to make sure all of your needs are taken care of. Again, you would be free to spend the rest as you choose. (Sound familiar?)

You see how I would look after everyone? We would really have a spiffy society.

I could go on for pages, but you get the drift. I'm being a little facetious (could you tell?), but seriously, I bet there's nobody out there who wouldn't do some infuriating things if you were king.

That's why we don't have kings or dictators in this country... yet. The trains run on time, sure, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. And even the best person with the purest of intentions will royally mess up a country if given absolute power over it.

What set off this most recent flight of fancy was executive order 13083.

I'm sure you've heard of it, and I'm equally sure most of you don't know much about it. The national press certainly hasn't covered it, and frankly the conservatives in Congress were asleep at the switch when it came through.

We have a concept embedded in our Constitution called federalism. It's stated clearly in the Tenth Amendment. In a nutshell, the idea is that we have a balance of power. The states or the people get all the powers not specifically and expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution. And within the federal government, the powers of the executive, judicial and legislative branches are clearly spelled out elsewhere in the Constitution.

It's really a beautiful system. We should implement it some day. If it works like it's supposed to, the greatest power over people's lives resides in the government that is closest to them. That way, if your local government does something you don't like, you can get an elected representative on the phone and make your feelings known. You can organize a protest without great expense and without having to take time off from work to travel to Washington.

Executive order 13083 quietly does away with all of that and provides for a total accumulation of all the power in the hands of the president.

All right, that's overstating it a bit. The order provides for a total power grab only if the president decides there's a sufficient national emergency, like El Nino, global warming or Y2K.

The order states that, under the concept of federalism, we need to maintain a balance of power. Then it proceeds to lay out a series of vague, broad criteria for interpreting who has jurisdiction over what sphere of power.

I've read large portions of it, and it's scary. For instance, this person who has demonstrated over and again that he has poor judgment would be free to enact treaties with foreign governments without waiting for ratification.

Vice President Al Gore has already issued a tax without legislative action. If you don't believe me, look on your long distance phone bill.

A friend of mine wrote to Rep. Mac Collins, our congressman here in Fayette, and in his answering letter Collins states it this way: "The criteria are so expansive that almost any action taken by any federal agency could be deemed appropriate. The Clinton order attempts to provide federal departments and agencies new authority to dictate state regulations and policy to state legislatures, governors and agencies.

"The order further suggests that any issue affecting more than one state should automatically fall under federal jurisdiction. Such broad federal authority would render state governments powerless and virtually irrelevant."

The states don't always do the right thing. That's one reason we have a federal government. But if we don't have the states to balance the federal government, heaven help us.