Executive Orders

[Salty]

BO has signed 135 EO's. Are there any you agree with? disagree with? if so, tell us why you disagree or agree
Salty

PS- no I don't expect each person to comment on every one of the 134 EO's

 

[saturneptune]

BO has signed 135 EO's. Are there any you agree with? disagree with? if so, tell us why you disagree or agree
Salty

PS- no I don't expect each person to comment on every one of the 134 EO's

The vast majority I disagree with. I do agree with 13540, which coordinates federal agencies to help veterans start small businesses.

All Presidents use executive orders to short circuit Congress, either policy wise or inaction. There seems to be a fine line in the legality to issue such orders and the requirement to pass a new law through Congress. I think there should be some check and balance on executive orders, even if they are legal.

Its funny, we seem not to bring up the subject when our party or candidate is in power.

 

[Crabtownboy]

FDR issued 3728 EO's, by far the most of any president.

Reagan issued 381 in 8 years.

George W. Bush issued 291 in 8 years

Obama has issued 135 in 4 years.

EO's have been used for over 200 years. That being the case I cannot see them being done away with.

U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

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

 

[Don]

So the latest EO being considered is because congress voted on a cyber-security bill, and it didn't pass.
fcw.com/articles/2012/09/07/obama-white-house-cybersecurity-executive-order.aspx?m=1

It didn't pass due to concerns about increased regulations causing increased financial burden on the private companies involved. So how do you get what you want when elected representatives vote no?

The other tidbit of this is that it gives DHS more control over those companies.

 

[saturneptune]

One of the problems that gives more power to the executive order is the bills Congress passes are poorly worded, vague, and novels instead of bills. The lack of distinct meanings and directions gives power back to the executive branch to decide the details. That is not the intent of the Constitution.

Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

When Congress writes bills no one can figure out, power is added to the executive branch.

 

[carpro]

Executive orders that make law should be illegal.

For example, Obama's cap and trade bill failed miserably.

So he wrote orders to allow the EPA to implement some of the key provisions of the law that failed. That's just wrong.

 

[Revmitchell]

Executive orders that make law should be illegal.

For example, Obama's cap and trade bill failed miserably.

So he wrote orders to allow the EPA to implement some of the key provisions of the law that failed. That's just wrong.

Marxism does not care. Evil only wants its own way and it cares not how it gets there.

 

[preachinjesus]

Executive Orders that perform legislative functions abrogate the representative nature of our government. They should be used rarely and only as a short-term device when Congress isn't in session.

EO aren't helpful devices in a federal constitutional republic.

 

[Don]

One of the problems that gives more power to the executive order is the bills Congress passes are poorly worded, vague, and novels instead of bills. The lack of distinct meanings and directions gives power back to the executive branch to decide the details. That is not the intent of the Constitution.

Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

When Congress writes bills no one can figure out, power is added to the executive branch.

What has to be watched out for, and fought against, are those EOs that add to the "taxation" of the people. It is my thought process that any EO that increases regulation, and thus increases reliance on taxes, and thus increases taxes required to support such regulation, is in violation of the part of the Constitution that says only Congress can impose taxes.

But that is my personal thought process. I haven't seen anything that validates my thinking; nor have I seen anyone trying to challenge an EO for such a reason.