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

[TobiasFunke]

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?

Not sure I follow, but as a general rule anything a president does in an EO a president can also undo in an EO.  There are some exceptions, though, most notably if the EO exercises a statutory authority granted to the president where revocation isn't necessarily within the president's authority.  For example Obama recently withdrew some offshore areas from oil and gas leasing by executive order- that's an authority he clearly has under the statute, but it's not necessarily clear if the statute also grants the authority to reverse a previous withdrawal.

Also, as I mentioned before people use "executive order" as a catch-all to describe any presidential declaration.  Some are actually memoranda or proclamations. There's no legal significance to it. Some make real changes, some are just policy declarations or guidance to agencies.

 

[The General]

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.

How's that now?

 

[Steeler]

Not sure I follow, but as a general rule anything a president does in an EO a president can also undo in an EO.  There are some exceptions, though, most notably if the EO exercises a statutory authority granted to the president where revocation isn't necessarily within the president's authority.  For example Obama recently withdrew some offshore areas from oil and gas leasing by executive order- that's an authority he clearly has under the statute, but it's not necessarily clear if the statute also grants the authority to reverse a previous withdrawal.

Also, as I mentioned before people use "executive order" as a catch-all to describe any presidential declaration.  Some are actually memoranda or proclamations. There's no legal significance to it. Some make real changes, some are just policy declarations or guidance to agencies.

Follow up - what percentage (or however you want to measure it) of EO are an attempt to circumvent Congress?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Follow up - what percentage (or however you want to measure it) of EO are an attempt to circumvent Congress?

I really can't say, other than to say it's very small. It kind of depends on what you consider circumventing, of course. If Congress is silent on a subject, does that count?  In many cases EOs are about something Congress hasn't legislated and the support is that the subject matter arguably falls under the powers allocated to the president by the Constitution.  If you're only talking about subject matters where Congress has legislated and the president is doing something arguably beyond what that legislation delegates to him, the number is very small. Maybe 1% if you only include actual executive orders (maybe more, I dunno, but not that high), well under 1% if you also include the other things people often describe as executive orders like memoranda and proclamations. 

 

[jon_mx]

How's that now?

CO2 is vital to life on this planet.  It is a product of our breathing process and it is necessary for photosynthesis so plants can grow.  Calling it a pollutant is a misnomer. 

 

[The General]

CO2 is vital to life on this planet.  It is a product of our breathing process and it is necessary for photosynthesis so plants can grow.  Calling it a pollutant is a misnomer. 

The more the better, right?

 

[jon_mx]

The more the better, right?

Too much water is a bad thing too, but it does not make sense to call it a pollutant.  Usually when you call something a pollutant, it refers to contaminates.  So it is a creative way for bureaucrats to expand their power.  If we want to regulate CO2 and issues stiff penalties, let's have our elected representatives decide that.   

 

[The General]

Too much water is a bad thing too, but it does not make sense to call it a pollutant.  Usually when you call something a pollutant, it refers to contaminates.  So it is a creative way for bureaucrats to expand their power.  If we want to regulate CO2 and issues stiff penalties, let's have our elected representatives decide that.   

These analogies you are making are a tad too simplistic wouldn't you say? If you don't agree that trying to limit CO2 is a goal that we should be shooting for than we don't need to carry on.

 

[jon_mx]

These analogies you are making are a tad too simplistic wouldn't you say? If you don't agree that trying to limit CO2 is a goal that we should be shooting for than we don't need to carry on.

I don't agree with bureaucrats being given a blank check to impose rules and penalties.  All we are accomplishing is taxing energy, which in many cases will be transferred to individuals in the form of higher utility bills.  The way it should be done is by encouraging new plants to use green energy and provide incentives others to upgrade.   Using the brute force of government is not the most efficient way to get there. 

 

[The General]

I don't agree with bureaucrats being given a blank check to impose rules and penalties.  All we are accomplishing is taxing energy, which in many cases will be transferred to individuals in the form of higher utility bills.  The way it should be done is by encouraging new plants to use green energy and provide incentives others to upgrade.   Using the brute force of government is not the most efficient way to get there. 

Should we be working towards limiting CO2?

 

[shadrap]

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.

yep.  In one fell swoop via executive order.  let's get back to square one.