Executive Orders - Can we agree on something? (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

 

[BladeRunner]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

I agree with you, Sho. 

I think the only way to curb this is thru legislation, but the current POTUS (whoever that is) would have to sign it and that would mean giving up some power.  What POTUS would do that?

I certainly think the EO has gotten WAY out of hand.  IMO, this was only supposed to be used for immediate emergencies and not for every pet project and idea that fits the party line.

Excellent topic, btw.  I'd like to see what others think.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Totally agreed.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

For context, Obama had 276 EOs. Trump had 220.

GW Bush - 291
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Eisenhower - 484
Roosevelt - 3,721

They've always been part of the Presidency.

 

[Hoh]

I hate the concept.  But with as useless as Congress is anymore it’s the only way to get anything done it seems. Until we place a value on “compromise “ and not “winning” the two-party system will reach its inevitable conclusion.

 

[sho nuff]

For context, Obama had 276 EOs. Trump had 220.

GW Bush - 291
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Eisenhower - 484
Roosevelt - 3,721

They've always been part of the Presidency.

An interesting look…but would like to see the meat of those vs just raw numbers (not that any of us are going to go through them). But how much of it was more ceremonial in the past vs legislating by EO that at least seems to be more prevalent now (or maybe we just have it reported more now)?

 

[dkp993]

The first 3-6 months of every Presidency lately seems completely wasted on reversing the previous Presidents EO’s.  Hate it.   

 

[Amused to Death]

An interesting look…but would like to see the meat of those vs just raw numbers (not that any of us are going to go through them). But how much of it was more ceremonial in the past vs legislating by EO that at least seems to be more prevalent now (or maybe we just have it reported more now)?

Not sure about each EO through history, but this site discusses some of the more important ones, including freeing the slaves and internment camps for Japanese Americans.

 

[the moops]

For context, Obama had 276 EOs. Trump had 220.

You are missing a very important distinction here friend.

Obama was president for 8 years. Trump for 4.

 

[dgreen]

You are missing a very important distinction here friend.

Obama was president for 8 years. Trump for 4.

Are EOs usually spread evenly over the course of a presidency? I would assume they aren’t and that they mostly occur early and then fade away. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Love them!

 

[Amused to Death]

You are missing a very important distinction here friend.

Obama was president for 8 years. Trump for 4.

Yeah sorry. I wasn't trying to make a statement or anything, just showing their total numbers compared to the others I listed. But you're right that EOs per year is better to compare how many each President issued.

ETA: Its interesting that Trump had nearly as many in his one year as Obama had in his two, only because of how much the right wing media railed on Obama for how many he issued. "He thinks he's king!"

 

[MAC_32]

What POTUS would do that?

A party that campaigns on this, not removing the filibuster, puts up piles of candidates that are rooted in compromise, and the populace voting for them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

Agreed.

 

[E Street Brat]

You are missing a very important distinction here friend.

Obama was president for 8 years. Trump for 4.

I'd be curious to see how many eo's are just reversals from the previous POTUS.

 

[supermike80]

I agree

 

[beef]

For context, Obama had 276 EOs. Trump had 220.

GW Bush - 291
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Eisenhower - 484
Roosevelt - 3,721

They've always been part of the Presidency.

Interesting data here.  Had no idea it has always been used this much.  

 

[Desert_Power]

For context, Obama had 276 EOs. Trump had 220.

GW Bush - 291
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Eisenhower - 484
Roosevelt - 3,721

They've always been part of the Presidency.

Yep. Little issue with these. Probably could use even more of these now that the Senate has become a completely legislative body.

 

[BladeRunner]

Yep. Little issue with these. Probably could use even more of these now that the Senate has become a completely legislative body.

This is so self serving.  Im guessing you had no problem when Trump was doing it too? And We'll see how you feel when the next POTUS is GOP.

 

[The General]

I hate the concept.  But with as useless as Congress is anymore it’s the only way to get anything done it seems. Until we place a value on “compromise “ and not “winning” the two-party system will reach its inevitable conclusion.

Yep.

You “win” by not letting the opposing party have anything. The Prez then has to get wins with this tool. 

 

[the moops]

This is so self serving.  Im guessing you had no problem when Trump was doing it too? And We'll see gow you feel when the next POTUS is GOP.

Elections have consequences. We can hate the result of Trump's EO but still realize that they are an important part of our democracy

 

[Da Guru]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

Yes, not only out of hand it is reckless and dangerous to do these on the first few days in office without assesing the consequences. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Yes, not only out of hand it is reckless and dangerous to do these on the first few days in office without assesing the consequences. 

But they've decreased over the last several presidencies. They're not used nearly as much as they used to.

 

[parasaurolophus]

:slaphands:

Omg. I agree with sho. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

:slaphands:

Omg. I agree with sho. 

I agree too.

After 18 months of Biden even the most hardened are coming around.

 

[BladeRunner]

I agree too.

After 18 months of Biden even the most hardened are coming around.

It's good to see, actually.  Gives me a little bit of hope. 

Just a little, though.

 

[quick-hands]

I think the more recent overuse of Executive orders has gotten out of hand...and serves little purpose other than some temporary things that will for sure be reversed the minute a POTUS from the other party is sworn in.

IMO...this got worse under Obama, continued with Trump and on into Biden.  

I understand that a few things may have been needed to get done with the division in congress making it darn near impossible to do legislatively...but it was taken so far it is definitely not serving the American people well.

What can be done to limit this type of power of the Executive branch?

Totally agree.   The problem is congress dumping it's power on the executive branch.   It's not really EOs.    To much power is given to unnamed beurocrats.

Legislation is written so that the head of a dept will decide what the "rules" are.   Which means laws.   It's bull####.