Executive Orders - Please explain them to me. (1 Viewer)

[On The Rocks]

I am not fishing...I did hear on a conservative talk show last night that President Obama has ordered 17 Executive Orders in his short term in office. I have not investigated this and don't know much about them, but that does sound like a large number.

This is not an anti-Obama thread - at least it isn't intended to be - I am sure there have been Republican Presidents that have submitted EO's that many people have not been agreement with.

I took a brief look at Wikipedia - and saw some info - but was curious what the opinions were from the FBG's.

 

[NCCommish]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.

Bush issued 290 over his term.

 

[On The Rocks]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.Bush issued 290 over his term.

Regardless of position - are you in favor of a President having this power?

 

[NCCommish]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.Bush issued 290 over his term.

Regardless of position - are you in favor of a President having this power?

Haven't really thought about it. It just is. I am pretty sure I like it better when the order is something I like and less so when it isn't. But it does serve a purpose and Congress can kill them if they want to. With that said though I can see reasonable arguments against it.

 

[jonessed]

There should be concern over his creation of these "czar" positions with no oversight outside of Obama's office. It's been done before, but never to the extent that Obama is doing it.

 

[NCCommish]

There should be concern over his creation of these "czar" positions with no oversight outside of Obama's office. It's been done before, but never to the extent that Obama is doing it.

We do need to watch those and make sure there isn't abuse, or circumventing, of the system.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The power vests from USC Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Art. II, Sec. 3, Clause 5:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.

Bush issued 290 over his term.

I am not sure that the Constitution allows for substantively changing laws or instituting new ones such that Congress really should have been deciding them, or revising laws from Congress as soon as they are passed before they are even out of the wrapper such that they would have never passed in that form in the first place. Somehow we as a people allow it though. - Obama is at 153, including the signature "legislation" of his administration, including health care, guns and immigration, putting him on pace to match, near or exceed Bush Jr.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.

Bush issued 290 over his term.

Regardless of position - are you in favor of a President having this power?

"I am in favor of them when my President uses them. I am against them when a President from a different party uses them"

Sincerely,

Typical American

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Here is a list

Barack Obama - 150ish so far
George W. Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
George Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Ford - 169
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 325
Kennedy - 214
Eisenhower - 484
Truman - 907
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3,522
Hoover - 968
Coolidge - 1,203
Harding - 522
Wilson - 1,803
Taft - 724
Theodore Roosevelt - 1,081
McKinley - 185
Cleveland II - 140
Harrison - 143
Cleveland I - 113
Arthur - 96
Garfield - 6
Hayes - 92
Grant - 217
Andrew Johnson - 79
Lincoln - 48
Buchanan - 16
Pierce - 35
Fillmore - 12
Taylor - 5
Polk - 18
Tyler - 17
Harrison - 0
van Buren - 10
Jackson - 12
Adams - 3
Monroe - 1
Madison - 1
Jefferson - 4
Adams - 1
Washington - 8

 

[Sarnoff]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.Bush issued 290 over his term.

Regardless of position - are you in favor of a President having this power?

"I am in favor of them when my President uses them. I am against them when a President from a different party uses them"

Sincerely,

Typical American

Not just "Typical American". Obama himself campaigned against Bush's "abuse" of the system to expand Executive power by issuing so many executive orders.

 

[E Street Brat]

The constitutional basis is vague but they have been in use since the 1800's. And yes that's a decent number. In the same time span Bush and Clinton issued about 10 each IIRC. Of course many of Obamas have been rolling back Bush orders.Bush issued 290 over his term.

Regardless of position - are you in favor of a President having this power?

"I am in favor of them when my President uses them. I am against them when a President from a different party uses them" Sincerely, Typical American

Not just "Typical American". Obama himself campaigned against Bush's "abuse" of the system to expand Executive power by issuing so many executive orders.

So the typical Kenyan feels the same way also?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can anyone/someone give an example of an Executive Order that would be illegal?

 

[Fennis]

Can anyone/someone give an example of an Executive Order that would be illegal?

By the authority vested in me as President, by the Constitution, and the laws of the United States of America I disband Congress.

 

[jon_mx]

The number of Executive Orders means nothing, it is the content that should be the issue. If Executive Orders are just rules that apply to running the Executive Branch of the office, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Executive Orders are making rules which effects American citizens in a way that goes beyond the scope of enforcing the laws that were passed by Congress, there is an issue.

An example might be that Congress passes laws that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants. So the President declares CO2 a pollutant by Executive Order then proceeds to advance the global warming agenda by imposing large taxes on corporations who emit CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is really like calling oxygen a pollutant and it should be Congress that imposing specific regulations on such, but if enough of a grey area exists a President could do this by Executive Order. It would then be up to Congress to challenge the Executive Order in court or pass a new law which specifically contradicts the law which the President is trying to establish by Executive Order.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can anyone/someone give an example of an Executive Order that would be illegal?

By the authority vested in me as President, by the Constitution, and the laws of the United States of America I disband Congress.

Didn't the President just take it upon himself to declare when the Congress was in and out of session? Not much difference, really.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The number of Executive Orders means nothing, it is the content that should be the issue. If Executive Orders are just rules that apply to running the Executive Branch of the office, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Executive Orders are making rules which effects American citizens in a way that goes beyond the scope of enforcing the laws that were passed by Congress, there is an issue.

An example might be that Congress passes laws that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants. So the President declares CO2 a pollutant by Executive Order then proceeds to advance the global warming agenda by imposing large taxes on corporations who emit CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is really like calling oxygen a pollutant and it should be Congress that imposing specific regulations on such, but if enough of a grey area exists a President could do this by Executive Order. It would then be up to Congress to challenge the Executive Order in court or pass a new law which specifically contradicts the law which the President is trying to establish by Executive Order.

It is not entirely clear to me why the example would be illegal. This seems very much like something the current president would do.

What does the president actually need Congress for at this point? To pass a budget? The president is allowed by EO to create regulations which require the expenditure of new funds.

 

[Herb]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

 

[jon_mx]

The number of Executive Orders means nothing, it is the content that should be the issue. If Executive Orders are just rules that apply to running the Executive Branch of the office, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Executive Orders are making rules which effects American citizens in a way that goes beyond the scope of enforcing the laws that were passed by Congress, there is an issue.

An example might be that Congress passes laws that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants. So the President declares CO2 a pollutant by Executive Order then proceeds to advance the global warming agenda by imposing large taxes on corporations who emit CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is really like calling oxygen a pollutant and it should be Congress that imposing specific regulations on such, but if enough of a grey area exists a President could do this by Executive Order. It would then be up to Congress to challenge the Executive Order in court or pass a new law which specifically contradicts the law which the President is trying to establish by Executive Order.

It is not entirely clear to me why the example would be illegal. This seems very much like something the current president would do.

What does the president actually need Congress for at this point? To pass a budget? The president is allowed by EO to create regulations which require the expenditure of new funds.

I did not say the example was illegal, but it is an abuse of what a President should be doing. His job should be to enforce laws passed by Congress, but too many times Congress seems to give power to the Executive Branch in these alphabet agencies which can be abused and the checks and balances that were written into our Constitution is no longer there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

Just reading up on this and apparently only two XO's have ever been overturned:

- Truman's takeover of steel mills to break strikes during the Korean War in 1952.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=343&page=579

- And - Clinton's order in 1995 prohibiting the federal government from contracting with companies that hire strike breakers.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives#pgfId=1124447

 

[Fennis]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

this is not correct or close to factual.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The number of Executive Orders means nothing, it is the content that should be the issue. If Executive Orders are just rules that apply to running the Executive Branch of the office, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Executive Orders are making rules which effects American citizens in a way that goes beyond the scope of enforcing the laws that were passed by Congress, there is an issue.

An example might be that Congress passes laws that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants. So the President declares CO2 a pollutant by Executive Order then proceeds to advance the global warming agenda by imposing large taxes on corporations who emit CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is really like calling oxygen a pollutant and it should be Congress that imposing specific regulations on such, but if enough of a grey area exists a President could do this by Executive Order. It would then be up to Congress to challenge the Executive Order in court or pass a new law which specifically contradicts the law which the President is trying to establish by Executive Order.

It is not entirely clear to me why the example would be illegal. This seems very much like something the current president would do.

What does the president actually need Congress for at this point? To pass a budget? The president is allowed by EO to create regulations which require the expenditure of new funds.

I did not say the example was illegal, but it is an abuse of what a President should be doing. His job should be to enforce laws passed by Congress, but too many times Congress seems to give power to the Executive Branch in these alphabet agencies which can be abused and the checks and balances that were written into our Constitution is no longer there.

This was the USSC in slamming Truman's XO seizing steel mills back:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute.

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President.

The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.

This is Obama today or yesterday:

“I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” he added.

It's unclear to me if supporters of the president think that he is creating new law.

If he is creating new law, then he is causing a constitutional crisis. This seems like a pretty crucial issue to our country, bigger than immigration or minimum wage or health care or anything else he has ruled on.

 

[jon_mx]

The number of Executive Orders means nothing, it is the content that should be the issue. If Executive Orders are just rules that apply to running the Executive Branch of the office, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Executive Orders are making rules which effects American citizens in a way that goes beyond the scope of enforcing the laws that were passed by Congress, there is an issue.

An example might be that Congress passes laws that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants. So the President declares CO2 a pollutant by Executive Order then proceeds to advance the global warming agenda by imposing large taxes on corporations who emit CO2. Calling CO2 a pollutant is really like calling oxygen a pollutant and it should be Congress that imposing specific regulations on such, but if enough of a grey area exists a President could do this by Executive Order. It would then be up to Congress to challenge the Executive Order in court or pass a new law which specifically contradicts the law which the President is trying to establish by Executive Order.

It is not entirely clear to me why the example would be illegal. This seems very much like something the current president would do.

What does the president actually need Congress for at this point? To pass a budget? The president is allowed by EO to create regulations which require the expenditure of new funds.

I did not say the example was illegal, but it is an abuse of what a President should be doing. His job should be to enforce laws passed by Congress, but too many times Congress seems to give power to the Executive Branch in these alphabet agencies which can be abused and the checks and balances that were written into our Constitution is no longer there.

This was the USSC in slamming Truman's XO seizing steel mills back:

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute.

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President.

The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand.

This is Obama today or yesterday:

“I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” he added.

It's unclear to me if supporters of the president think that he is creating new law.

If he is creating new law, then he is causing a constitutional crisis. This seems like a pretty crucial issue to our country, bigger than immigration or minimum wage or health care or anything else he has ruled on.

His supporters are too busy wiping their chins.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

I'm not a far cry from either. Good rule of thumb. . If you get your information from democratic underground you might as well just not worry about anything important. You are and they are 100 wrong.

 

[Herb]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

I'm not a far cry from either. Good rule of thumb. . If you get your information from democratic underground you might as well just not worry about anything important. You are and they are 100 wrong.

Information was culled from my own head (dubious source, admittedly) and a couple other quick google search clicks, so I cannot verify democratic underground, and have never heard of them. That said, please feel free to correct my misinformation. I'm curious to hear what I'm wrong about.

 

[Herb]

His supporters are too busy wiping their chins.

What are the opposition's supporters wiping?

 

[Mario Kart]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

I'm not a far cry from either. Good rule of thumb. . If you get your information from democratic underground you might as well just not worry about anything important. You are and they are 100% wrong.

Information was culled from my own head (dubious source, admittedly) and a couple other quick google search clicks, so I cannot verify democratic underground, and have never heard of them. That said, please feel free to correct my misinformation. I'm curious to hear what I'm wrong about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

May not be the best source but its a start.

 

[Herb]

I'm a far cry from a constitutional lawyer or even a political wonk, but here it is in my understanding:

As a result of the series of executive orders written over the decades by several presidents, the US has been in a declared state of national emergency since 1933. As a result of the state of emergency, XOs give the sitting president powers beyond all reason, similar to what a king or dictator would be able to exercise. These include, but are far from limited to: the power to seize and control property, commodities, transportation and communication, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, institute martial law, regulate private enterprise, restrict travel and assign military forces abroad.

So essentially whatever the president declares is law. Barring some crazy XO like "I, (sitting prez) do hereby declare myself despot for life and F--- all y'all" It seems unlikely that congress would override the power of the XOs. Hell, with the current political makeup in this country, we may only be one election cycle away from this actually happening. I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

I'm not a far cry from either. Good rule of thumb. . If you get your information from democratic underground you might as well just not worry about anything important. You are and they are 100% wrong.

Information was culled from my own head (dubious source, admittedly) and a couple other quick google search clicks, so I cannot verify democratic underground, and have never heard of them. That said, please feel free to correct my misinformation. I'm curious to hear what I'm wrong about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

May not be the best source but its a start.

That doesn't really contradict anything I said, other than perhaps my editorial comments, which I have bolded and are mostly tongue in cheek.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Whatever. Your first paragraph is lifted directly from where I said it was lifted from. So I've got better things to do.

 

[Herb]

Whatever. Your first paragraph is lifted directly from where I said it was lifted from. So I've got better things to do.

I have no doubt of that.

I'm not trying to start an argument. I don't generally memorize the links to which I quickly "lift" information. If it's from that source I don't care. If you have some insight onto why I'm mistaken then feel free to share it. I'm sure you know more about it than I do and I'm honestly curious. If you want to continue to be dismissive then by all means you can do that too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So. We've been expanding executive orders and the imperial presidency for 8 years?

Well what could possibly go wrong.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Old cause of mine and I doubt there are many new converts but here we go again...

...I'm past even the constitutional issue.

We go Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat...

...and all the hot button social wedge issues get yanked back and forth by executive order: abortion, health care, regulations, etc., etc. Here we go again with Trump.

We are not resolving anything as a country. We are just yoyoing back and forth like an elastic rubber band. We're positively nuts over the last 40 or so years.

If we resolve things via Congress we decide as a people, we reach consensus and we largely move on. This is impossible to do with EOs.

 

[Joe Summer]

jonessed:

There should be concern over his creation of these "czar" positions with no oversight outside of Obama's office. It's been done before, but never to the extent that Obama is doing it.

Ha ha.

 

[shadrap]

Old cause of mine and I doubt there are many new converts but here we go again...

...I'm past even the constitutional issue.

We go Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat...

...and all the hot button social wedge issues get yanked back and forth by executive order: abortion, health care, regulations, etc., etc. Here we go again with Trump.

We are not resolving anything as a country. We are just yoyoing back and forth like an elastic rubber band. We're positively nuts over the last 40 or so years.

If we resolve things via Congress we decide as a people, we reach consensus and we largely move on. This is impossible to do with EOs.

Obama didn't help things much when he said, "I've got a pen and a phone".   you can post until you are blue in the face about how that dude faced obstruction in the house & senate, as he did.   That's the way it's supposed to work.   Now we have another guy with a pen & phone.  not working so good, is it?

not TRYING to be snarky  as I do not like Ex. orders, but sometimes you reap what you sow.  We are seeing that right now including the nuclear option passed by Harry Reid & his band of followers who thought they would be in power forever.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama didn't help things much when he said, "I've got a pen and a phone". ...

Uh, you and I are on the same page here I believe.

not TRYING to be snarky 

Hey I didn't think so.

I do not like Ex. orders, but sometimes you reap what you sow.  We are seeing that right now including the nuclear option passed by Harry Reid & his band of followers who thought they would be in power forever.

See, I don't get this.

If you do not like EO's, you don't like EOs. You don't say, 'oh those are EOs for things I like, now I just like EOs'.

I mean, you don't like them for a reason right? They're often unconstitutional? They're autocratic? Bad for the system?

I mean, do you believe in a principle, or follow the man? It seems very simple to me.

 

[Higgs]

Yeah, no #####ing about it now.  Nobody other than Saint expressed any concern or outrage when Obama was doing it.  Elections have consequences, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, no #####ing about it now.  Nobody other than Saint expressed any concern or outrage when Obama was doing it.  Elections have consequences, right?

It's like all the some to many or most conservatives changed into pumpkins at midnight.

I remember someone saying once that Air America was what liberals thought a liberal Rush Limbaugh would sound like.

I guess the complaint here wasn't that Obama was acting illegally, no, it was that the GOP wanted their own Obama. It's revanchism. Congratulations, I guess you got him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am not fishing...I did hear on a conservative talk show last night that President Obama has ordered 17 Executive Orders in his short term in office. ...

- Wow, 17 EOs by March 12th, what a torrid pace. Where's Trump right now?

 

[Higgs]

It's like all the conservatives changed into pumpkins at midnight.

I remember someone saying once that Air America was what liberals thought a liberal Rush Limbaugh would sound like.

I guess the complaint here wasn't that Obama was acting illegally, no, it was that the GOP wanted their own Obama. It's revanchism. Congratulations, I guess you got him.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that if you didn't speak out 3 years ago, you don't get to speak out now.

 

[rockaction]

It's like all the conservatives changed into pumpkins at midnight.

I remember someone saying once that Air America was what liberals thought a liberal Rush Limbaugh would sound like.

I guess the complaint here wasn't that Obama was acting illegally, no, it was that the GOP wanted their own Obama. It's revanchism. Congratulations, I guess you got him.

Nope. I fully support the checks and balances of government. Call it Article XII if you will, but dammit I support it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I'm just saying that if you didn't speak out 3 years ago, you don't get to speak out now.

- Well liberals and progressives could convert now - and I would think they would happily take the deal that any substantive measures taken by Trump must go through Congress first before taking effect - but.... that would of course result in abandoning a good deal of the executive authority and rule making which has so much formed the expansion of the state since the 1930s and hopefully in the future, so.... naaaahhhhh.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nope. I fully support the checks and balances of government. Call it Article XII if you will, but dammit I support it.

There we go folks, a man of principle.

 

[shadrap]

Uh, you and I are on the same page here I believe.

Hey I didn't think so.

See, I don't get this.

If you do not like EO's, you don't like EOs. You don't say, 'oh those are EOs for things I like, now I just like EOs'.

I mean, you don't like them for a reason right? They're often unconstitutional? They're autocratic? Bad for the system?

I mean, do you believe in a principle, or follow the man? It seems very simple to me.

I don't like EO's period, regardless who does them.  

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It's like all the conservatives changed into pumpkins at midnight.

I really am starting to hate this line, because it's not all conservatives.  Some of us still have a ****ing spine and have stayed true to what we believe the nature of the government should be.  Some of us didn't support or vote for this ****show. 

Granted there is like 4 of us left, but it's not all.  Can we just say, "most conservatives."  It would help because I hate being lumped with this current GOP, the people that call themselves conservatives that support this nonsense, and even the Christians that profess some kind of God-given victory in Trump which might just be the most maddening part of this whole thing.  I seriously want to punch half the people in my church.  In a loving Christ-like way.  Don't spare the rod and all that.  These people need an effing rod.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I really am starting to hate this line, because it's not all conservatives. 

Apologies, I agree.

People who labeled themselves conservatives but who now support Trump.

 

[Steeler]

I'd like to see Trump use EOs to role back Obama EOs and then abandon them for major policy initiatives... he has the entire Congress after all.

 

[jamny]

 I shudder to think what sort of craziness will go on the next time one of these "two" parties actually manages to seize control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I'll arrange a cornhole in Canada or Belize for all you expats.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, no #####ing about it now.  Nobody other than Saint expressed any concern or outrage when Obama was doing it.  Elections have consequences, right?

Wouldn't the flip side of that also be true- if you did ##### about it for the last eight years you should also ##### about it now?

Anyway, if you ask me this is much ado about nothing.  Executive orders are not created equal.  In fact some of them, including most of Trump's actions, aren't executive orders at all, they're executive memoranda.  Neither designation carries any legal significance.  Each should be evaluated on its own merits.  Most are clearly appropriate exercises of executive branch authority, including virtually everything I've seen from the Trump White House so far.  Some are not.  IMO anyone who tells you they like or don't like executive orders don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

No president since the 19th freaking century signed executive orders with less frequency that Barack Obama.  Seriously, could you guys google for at least five minutes before you start claiming hypocrisy?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No president since the 19th freaking century signed executive orders with less frequency that Barack Obama.  Seriously, could you guys google for at least five minutes before you start claiming hypocrisy?

[The Governator]

Yea, but they were all bad
[/The Governator]

True Lies is a treasure trove for this Presidency.  My movie line quoting thing in political threads is going to flourish for the next four years.

 

[Steeler]

Wouldn't the flip side of that also be true- if you did ##### about it for the last eight years you should also ##### about it now?

Anyway, if you ask me this is much ado about nothing.  Executive orders are not created equal.  In fact some of them, including most of Trump's actions, aren't executive orders at all, they're executive memoranda.  Neither designation carries any legal significance.  Each should be evaluated on its own merits.  Most are clearly appropriate exercises of executive branch authority, including virtually everything I've seen from the Trump White House so far.  Some are not.  IMO anyone who tells you they like or don't like executive orders don't know what they're talking about.

What is changed by a President rolling back an EO of a former President?  Or said another way, what changes when an EO is signed?