Executive Orders

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Sep 7, 2012.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    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
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,606
    Likes Received:
    152
    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.

     
  4. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    206
    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.
     
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    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.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    Marxism does not care. Evil only wants its own way and it cares not how it gets there.
     
  8. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    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.
     
  9. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    206
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...